Post on 18-Jul-2020
About the paper
About the author
2016
Centre for Policy Research in Higher Education
Centre for Policy Research in Higher Education
Series Editors
N. V. Varghese and Malish C. M.
research papers 2
A. Mathew
Reforms in Higher Education in India:A Review of Recommendations of
Commissions and Committees on Education
The discourses and recommendations of commissions and committees relating to higher education since Independence reveal widely varying trends. As it was mainly in state sector, the main thrust of commission/committee discourses on higher education (HE) till the 1970s was against expansion and for regulation according to UGC norms to protect it from deterioration in quality and standards as prevalent earlier. With decline in government funding from 1980s and 1990s, privatization and private agencies' entry through self-financing courses and colleges became an option to meet rising social demand for HE. The commissions and committees endorsed this approach while stressing the need to control private HE institutions from charging exorbitant fees. Although a significant portion of HE still continues under the state sector, there is far greater aggressiveness in the private agency's arguments for their unmitigated freedom and autonomy in higher education away from government control.
Currently working as National Fellow at NUEPA. His area of specialization includes study of educational development in historical perspective, adult education and lifelong learning. He has been actively involved in providing technical support to the Government of India in implementing adult education programmes. He has published six books and more than 100 articles in the areas of adult, primary, and higher education, history of education, and education policies.
A
RefA Review
CenNational U
forms iw of Reand Co
ntre for Po University
17‐B, Sr
in Higheecommeommitt
A.
licy Researy of Educari Aurobindo
Jan
er Educendatiotees on
Mathew
rch in Highetional Plano Marg, New
nuary 2016
cation ions of Cn Educat
er Educationning andw Delhi ‐ 110
6
in India Commition
n (CPRHE) d Administ016
a: ssions
tration
© National University of Educational Planning and Administration, 2015
(Declared by Government of India under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956)
First Published – January 2016 (3 H) Disclaimer: The views in the publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National University of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronics, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission in writing from NUEPA.
Published by the Registrar, National University of Educational Planning and Administration 17‐B, Sri Aurobindo Marg , New Delhi and Printed at M/s Archana Printers, Okhla, New Delhi‐110020
CONTENTS
Page No.
Introduction 2‐3
Perceptions on Expansion and Research 3‐16
Perceptions on Expansion 3‐10
Perceptions on Research 10‐16
Quality and Teaching 16‐31
Content, Curriculum and Standards of Teaching 16‐21
Assessment and Evaluation 22‐25
Teachers – Recruitment, Working Conditions and Accountability 25‐31
Governance and Reorganisation of Higher Education 31‐49
Governance of Universities: Before NPE 1986 32‐37
Perspective on Reorganisation of Higher Education System 37‐49
Privatization and Private Higher Education 49‐57
Privatisation of Higher Education 49‐52
Towards Dominance of Private Participation in HE 52‐57
Conclusion 58‐59
Annexure: Commissions and Committees on Education: Summary of Recommendations on Some Critical Issues of Higher Education
60‐63
References 64‐65
Reforms in Higher Education in India: A Review of Recommendations of Commissions and
Committees on Education*
A. Mathew**
Abstract
The discourses on higher education system in India after Independence could be distinguished by four major trends. First trend is the reluctance to expansion and restriction to admission without improving current facilities available in higher education institutions (HEI) and diverse views on continuity and change in the ways in which research is organized in higher education. The second trend concerns academic improvement related to curriculum, content, assessment and evaluation. Different commissions and committees on education are united in marking the irrelevant content and curriculum, admissions far in excess of capacity of facilities and faculty, deficient teaching methods and an outdated examination system, which tests rote learning rather than real learning and subject knowledge, as the reasons. The third trend is concerned with the discourses on reorganization of governance of HEIs for purposes of greater accountability. Autonomy and reorganization of universities were approached differently by different committees. The fourth strand relates to the privatization and private participation in higher education. The paper argues that private engagement in HE is now gaining wider policy legitimacy.
* Grateful to Professors R. Govinda and N. V. Varghese and Dr. Garima and Dr. V. Loganathan for their
comments and constant encouragement. Thanking CPRHE faculty members for their critical comments, which helped in substantial revision of this article.
** National Fellow, NUEPA, E‐mail: mathanthony@gmail.com
2 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
Introduction
India after Independence adopted a strategy of appointing Committees and
Commissions to reform education. The very first Commission appointed in
independent India was on higher education. There have been several Commissions/
Committees appointed to make recommendations on higher education development
at different points of time. The reports of these Commissions/Committees formed the
basis for initiating many reforms in the higher education sector in India.
Even a cursory glance of the various Commissions and Committees on higher
education cannot fail to notice the two extremely divergent views about higher
education in India. One, it has been and continues to be viewed as the major
instrument of national transformation, in terms of economic development, social
progress and strengthening of political democracy, as seen from the various
commissions and committees, right from Independence. The other view is that the
system of higher education is in deep crisis, progressively deteriorating over the last
six decades. As this paper would try to show, all the committees and commissions of
higher education are one in suggesting two differentiated approaches, by way of their
perceptions and recommendations, to deal with the deterioration in quality and
standards and arresting the degeneration in the accountability of higher education
institutions and the system as a whole.
In respect of one set of factors explaining the deterioration in standards and
quality of higher education – the academic dimensions, the different commissions and
committees are united in marking the irrelevant content and curriculum, admissions
far in excess of capacity of facilities and faculty, deficient teaching methods and an
examination system which tests rote learning rather than real learning and subject
knowledge as the reasons. In respect of management of higher education institutions,
a divergence of perceptions and recommendations could be noticed. While higher
education institutions were of the view that external pressures and interferences
A. Mathew 3
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
affected its autonomy, the socio‐political set up pointed out that the degeneration and
deterioration was far more serious, bringing the system of higher education into
serious disrepute, and demanded its accountability. Thus, as this paper argues, the
reasons that affected the credibility, reputation and standards of higher education
turned out to be along two sets of factors – one which could be amenable for reform
and improvement and one that required radical reorganization and overhaul. These
trends, indicating a differentiation in perceptions and recommendations of the various
commissions and committees on higher education, have not been explicit or self‐
evident reasons and solutions, but this distinction is a product of intensive study and
comparison of the trends in perceptions and recommendations.
This paper is organized along five broad headings, excluding introductory
section, viz., (1) Perception on Expansion and Research, (2) Quality and Teaching,
(3) Governance and Re‐organisation of higher education system, (4) Privatisation and
Private higher education, and (5) Conclusion. Summary of major recommendations on
critical issues of HE is given as annexure. It is to be noted that this paper covers only
general higher education – university and collegiate – and does not deal with technical
education in any significant degree.
Perceptions on Expansion and Research
Perceptions on Expansion
Unlike elementary education, which was considered as the right of every child
with the government obliged to provide for it, higher education was considered to be
meant for the talented. The one complaint that the University Education Commission
(also known as Radhakrishnan Commission) had was that “some of the colleges we
visited have, on their roles, 5‐10 times the number of students that they could properly
educate. Therefore, to avoid overcrowding at the universities and colleges, the
maximum number in the Arts and Science faculties of a teaching university should be
fixed at 3000, and in an affiliated colleges at 1500” (MOE, 1962, p.101). As regards PG
4 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
training and research in Arts and Sciences also, the sole concern of Radhakrishnan
Commission was that “a high standard of scholarship, that has been traditional in our
country, seems to have deserted us”, and that the “standards of our M.A. and M.Sc.
degrees should be raised” (MOE, 1962, p.141), which implied that admissions should be
regulated by the level of facilities to keep up the standard. Deterioration in quality and
standards in higher education and, by implication, stricter norms for selecting the
talented students was the recommendation of not only the Radhakrishnan
Commission in 1948‐49, but also the Education Commission (1964‐66) 15 years later.
The Education Commission emphasized that the expansion of facilities in higher
education in the next 20 years should be planned broadly on the basis of trends of
manpower needs and employment opportunities, unlike the prevailing trend of over‐
production and unemployment in subjects like arts and shortage of professional
specialists in professional courses (Government of India, 1966 (NCERT, 1971, 552). The
Commission recommended that the open‐door access to admission in arts and
commerce courses, followed in the first three Five Year Plans, should be replaced by a
policy of selective admission according to the number of teachers and facilities
available while selecting the best among eligible students (NCERT, 1971, p.557‐58).
In respect of expansion, the Commission suggested that while the under‐
graduate (UG) enrolment should increase from 1,55,000 to 3,20,000, i.e. nearly double
the number, by 1985‐86, the enrolment at Post‐Graduate (PG) and research level
should increase from 45,000 to 7,50,000, i.e. more than a dozen‐fold, but contingent
on the facilities and staff (NCERT, 1970, p. 567‐68). With regard to new Universities in
the metropolis, the Education Commission diagnosed the situation in Calcutta
University and found “very serious shortcomings” ‐‐ half a dozen affiliated colleges
with more than 50,000 students ‐‐ unmanageable undergraduate population, with not
even a modicum of essential facilities; and considerable time lag between the
examination and announcement of results. The Commission accepted the need for a
second university in the four metropolises, but felt that this could be done by
A. Mathew 5
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
regrouping of colleges under a new university (NCERT, 1971, p. 573). It also felt that
the demand for additional universities in states, which already had one, was justified.
But “it is essential”, said the Commission, to ensure that (i) establishment of these
universities leads to substantial improvement in standards and raises the output and
level of research; and (ii) competent men and physical facilities are provided. The
Commission was firm that no university should be started without UGC agreement,
sanction and funds (NCERT, 1971, p. 574‐75).
Reviewing the scene 20 years later, the Challenge of Education (1985) was more
disturbed by the “uneven nature of development of higher education” along regional,
social and gender lines. It noticed that the norms for starting colleges and universities
were flouted, but they kept absorbing resources without attaining minimum
standards and the Central Government preferred compromise than confrontation with
the State Governments, with the latter making some token amends (MOE, 1985,
p. 48). Expansion with conformity to the norms of the UGC (University Grants
Commission) and AICTE (All India Council of Technical Education) was seen as
impossible. Therefore, the one unequivocal advocacy of Challenge was that expansion
should stop, and reforming the system must become the agenda.
No wonder that in the sector of higher education, the strategy, according to the
National Policy on Education (NPE) 1986 and its Programme of Action (POA), was on
be consolidation of institutions. The NPE’s POA saw that “Many of the 150 Universities
and 5000 Colleges have not been provided with minimum level of infrastructure.
Provision of these facilities is essential to protect the system from degeneration” (GOI,
1986, p. 38‐39). Looking at the scene six years later, the NPE’s Revised POA, 1992
struck to the same strategy of consolidation and improvement of facilities rather than
quantitative expansion. The POA was proud that “we have one of the largest systems
of higher education in the world”, but, at the same time, “the spread and
development in this sector have been uneven” in infrastructure facilities resulting in
wide variation in the quality of teaching and research (GOI, 1996, p. 116).
6 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
Despite NPE, 1986’s firm position that the main emphasis would be on
consolidation of the existing institutions and increase of facilities in them, the
unplanned proliferation of institutions of higher learning continued unabated. Thus,
the number of universities had gone up from 149 to 176, the number of colleges from
5816 to 7121 and enrolment of students from about 36 lakh to over 44 lakh during 1985‐
86 to 1990‐91. Similarly, despite NPE’s firm view that “admissions will be regulated
according to capacity and urgent steps will be taken to protect the system from
degradation… in most parts of the country existing institutions of higher education
are still constrained to admit students beyond their capacity without commensurate
provision of physical and academic facilities. There is no institutional or other
mechanism to ensure that admissions to universities and colleges are restricted to
capacity” (GOI, 1996, p. 97).
Protecting the university education from degeneration was the foremost concern
rather than expansion of higher education. Increasing access and opportunities to
more and more students was decidedly accorded lesser preference to limiting the
admission according to available facilities and faculty.
It was only since the beginning of the century, the expansion of higher education
so as to meet the educational aspirations of ever increasing pass‐outs of senior
secondary education, as a necessary and legitimate agenda of the higher education
sector, was recognized. Although slow to gain currency, comparison of GER (Gross
Enrolment Ratio) in higher education with advanced and other developing countries
was used as a means of drawing attention to India’s lag in this regard.
The Special Subject Group on Policy Framework for Private Investment in Education,
Health and Rural Development constituted by the Prime Minister’s Council on Trade and
Industry in 2000 (known as Ambani Group) said that “Education is becoming even
more vital in the new world of information. Knowledge is rapidly replacing raw
materials and labour as the most critical input for survival and success. Knowledge has
A. Mathew 7
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
become the new asset”. The Ambani Group went on to suggest that the vision for
education in India would be “to create a competitive, yet co‐operative, knowledge‐
based society”. Elaborating the “guiding principle of the strategy”, the Group
recommended provision of UEE (Universal Elementary Education) in the RTE (Right to
Education) Act perspective, and a healthy mix of state and private initiatives in
education at other levels. In respect of higher education, the Group was particular
that the “user pays principle to be enforced strictly”, supplemented by loan schemes
and financial grants for economically and socially backward sections of society” (GOI,
2000, p. 14‐15). With regard to the roles in the educational development, the Group
said that the Government must focus strongly on primary and secondary education
and leave higher and professional education to the private sector (GOI, 2000, p.17).
The National Knowledge Commission (NKC) in 2006 was constrained to note
“The proportion of our population, in the age group 18‐24, that enters the world of
higher education is around seven per cent, which is only one‐half the average for Asia.
The opportunities for higher education, in terms of the number of places in
universities, are simply not enough in relation to our needs. The challenges that
confront higher education in India are clear. It needs a massive expansion of
opportunities for higher education, to 1500 universities nationwide, that would enable
India to attain a gross enrolment ratio of at least 15 per cent by 2015. We need to
create more appropriately scaled and more nimble universities” (NKC, 2006, p. 1, 3).
The NKC was forthright in saying that “the moral of the story is not only that we need
a much larger number of universities, say 1500 nationwide by 2015, but also that we
need smaller universities which are responsive to change and easier to manage”.
Summarising the recommendations of the National Knowledge Commission’s Note
on Higher Education, its Chairman, Sam Pitroda, wrote to the Prime Minister saying:
“We recommend the creation of 50 National Universities that can provide education of
the highest standard. As exemplars for the rest of the nation, these universities shall
train students in a variety of disciplines, including humanities, social sciences, basic
8 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
sciences, commerce and professional subjects, at both the undergraduate (UG) and
post‐graduate (PG) levels. The number 50 is a long‐term objective. In the short run, it is
important to begin with at least 10 such universities in the next three years. National
Universities can be established in two ways‐ by the government, or by a private
sponsoring body that sets up a Society, Charitable Trust or Section 25 Company” (NKC,
2006, p. 3). Having suggested a massive increase in the number of universities, the
Commission broadly outlined the measures for achieving it, including upgradation of
deserving colleges into deemed universities, besides the 50 National Universities,
establishment of new universities by the State and Central Governments, and
establishment of new universities by private providers (Swamy, n.d., p. 4).
As the name itself indicates, the Yashpal Committee on Renovation and
Rejuvenation of Higher Education (2009) laid less focus on expansion and more on
restoring “the idea of a university, as a place of germinating new ideas, striking roots
and growing tall and sturdy, as a unique space which covers the entire universe of
knowledge, and as a place where creative minds converge, interact with each other
and construct visions of new realities. To be able to do all this, universities have to be
autonomous spaces. They are diverse in their design and organisation, reflecting the
unique historical and socio‐cultural settings on which they have grown” (MHRD, 2009,
p.9). The Yashpal Committee noted that “the slow but increasing democratization of
higher education in India has meant that the university is no longer the preserve of the
children of the elite, or of the educated/professional middle‐class. As more youngsters
from different segments of society enter the universities, they look at higher
education as a means to transcend the class barriers” (MHRD, 2009, p.9). The NKC
and the Yashpal Committees stood diametrically opposite to the pre‐2000 viewpoint
on expansion, viz. admissions being restricted to facilities and capacity.
In its Report, the NR Narayana Murthy Committee on Corporate Participation in
Higher Education (2012) said that among the several problems that plague higher
education, the foremost is “inadequate number of institutions to educate eligible
A. Mathew 9
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
students”. It took note of India’s “low GER of 20% compared to 84% in the US, 59% in
the UK, 55% in Japan, and 28% in China”. Its focus is also more on creating a world‐class
higher education” and “a sharp improvement in the quality and quantity of institutions
of higher education to match standards in a globalized modern higher education
system”, with significant investment and focus on faculty and research (GOI, 2012, p.1).
The Narayana Murthy Committee saw less gain but more “serious challenges” in
the government’s efforts for the expansion of higher education, equity through
inclusion, and excellence in higher education. Based on the enrolment trend, which
increased from 8.4 million in 2000‐02 to 14.6 million in 2009‐10, the Committee felt that
higher education system would need an additional capacity of 26 million seats over the
next decade. But as regards the strategy for meeting this target, the Narayana Murthy
Committee had a different take, i.e. the corporate participation as a major means, and
removing all the barriers for their free operation, in setting up new universities and
higher education institutions, and managing them with total freedom (GOI, 2012,
p. 2‐3).
Two trends stand out from the survey of Commissions’/Committees’ perceptions
and perspectives on higher education since Independence, with regard to expansion.
One is the concern about deterioration of quality and standards in higher education
and the need to pay serious and immediate attention as the first priority. Expansion of
the opportunities for higher education as a conscious and concerted policy was
nowhere in the discourses for 50 years post‐Independence. Every commission/
committee report on higher education had one standard commentary, viz.
deterioration and degeneration in the standards and quality due to the failure to
restrict admissions to the capacity, outdated curriculum and syllabus, the domination
of end‐of‐the‐year examinations, laying premium on memory and rote learning than
understanding of the subject, and, more importantly, the governance system in the
university and higher education set‐up that thwarted improvements. Expansion was a
far cry in the prevailing milieu of such systemic hurdles, and the commissions,
10 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
naturally, were disinclined to advocate expansion of the system of higher education
and enrolments in colleges and universities. This was the trend and tenor in the
perception and recommendations of commissions and committees till the close of the
century.
It was the emergence of un‐aided private colleges – known as the capitation fee
colleges, and Deemed Universities by the private sector from 1980s and, especially,
from late 1990s and 2000s that altered the policy milieu. Starting from the Ambani
report in 2000, the National Knowledge Commission 2006, the Narayana Murthy
Committee 2012 and FICCI Higher Education Summit 2013, expansion of higher
education became a specific policy focus in the recommendations of these
committees. The auspices apart, (i.e., State or Private sector participation, either in
part or total) – expanding the opportunities for higher education from the XI Plan, to
students of all sections of society, in the perspective of equity, inclusion and
excellence, as contrasted with the selective approach (of restricting admission to the
talented few) became a specific policy agenda governing UGC approach and strategy.
Withholding expansion till improvement in facilities and restricting admission to
capacity was the watchword till about 2000. Continuing and further acceleration of
the expansion of institutions and enrolment in institutions of higher education became
the approach of the post‐2000 era.
Perceptions on Research
In the discourses of Commissions and Committees on education and also higher
education including the universities, a discussion on research was necessary because it
was seen as an extension of PG education, i.e. in the scope of expansion. For the
purpose of envisioning and planning, research leading to Ph.D in a university was seen
as an extension of PG education and this was seen as a core function of a university,
whether affiliating or unitary. One was seen as incomplete without the other. A
discussion on research was also important as in the initial years after Independence.
A. Mathew 11
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
Research in Science and Technology came to be undertaken in purely research
institutes outside the university system and without any connection with teaching and
research as an integral part of the academic work. As would be evident, such kinds of
research institutions and research work also came under serious criticism for depriving
the universities of their natural functions, and the call for not starving universities of
the functions and funds.
It is also necessary to explore the newer subject areas to be covered under
research and also the best possible approaches and strategies to promote research
within and outside the university system and research institutions. The treatment here
is more about the views of the commissions/committees on higher education as
extension of education beyond the PG level for the purpose of a doctorate degree
rather than the different subject as research either within or outside the university
education system. The University Education Commission viewed that the training for
the Ph.D. degree should extend over a period of at least two years. A Ph.D. student
should not become a narrow specialist, but his grasp of his subject should be
characterized both by breadth and depth. The examination should include a thesis and
a viva‐voce examination to test the candidate's general knowledge of the whole field
of the subject. Admission to Ph. D. courses should be made with great care and should
be on an all‐India basis. Teaching universities should develop research training in as
many branches of knowledge as they can, while the affiliating universities should
develop post‐graduate and research departments in subjects in which they can secure
services of scholars of high quality. The Commission felt that there should be a certain
number of Research Fellowships in each university for students who have taken the
Ph.D. degree and wish to pursue a career of scholarship and research. These
Fellowships should be awarded only to those Ph.Ds. who have shown a high degree of
scholarship and competence for research. The D.Litt. and D.Sc. degrees should be
awarded on published work of outstanding quality and conspicuous originality (MOE,
1962, p.133).
12 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
The Radhakrishnan Commission also surveyed the position of scientific research
vis‐a‐vis the Scientific Manpower Committee (also known as Sarcar Committee, 1946)
estimate of personnel required and prevalent shortage in the output of scientific
research. It endorsed the Sarcar Committee recommendations that the shortage
needs to be made up through a large number of Post‐Graduation and research
scholarships in universities and upgrading salaries of teachers. The Commission
recommended to the Ministry of Education to set up a machinery to select best
students from all over the country and offer scholarships and admission in the
universities (MOE 1962, p. 157‐158).
The Education Commission’s views on doctoral study seemed to be a reiteration of
the Radhakrishnan Commission’s suggestions. The Education Commission said that a
student should be expected to work for 2‐3 years for a Ph.D. It should involve one year
training in research methodology, comprehension of secondary literature, ability in
analysis, drawing inferences and presenting findings in a logical and scientific way,
besides advanced training in the subject. It said that the evaluation of a doctoral
dissertation should be improved; and a positive report of all the examiners and a viva
voce exam in defending the thesis are essential requirements for award of research
degree. Much like Radhakrishnan Commission, the Education Commission also felt it
desirable to establish a degree higher than Ph.D viz., Doctor of Science for a work of
research of an international standing and quality (NCERT, 1971, p.580‐81).
The Education Commission was clear that the bulk of the PG and research work
should be organized in the universities or university ‘centres’ where good programmes
could be developed by 3‐4 local good affiliated colleges under university guidance. The
university and university centres should shoulder the task of 80% of the PG and
research work.
In respect of educational research, the Education Commission noted the
inadequacy of facilities and competent people to guide it, the very low quality and
A. Mathew 13
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
narrow focus of research and the absence of a clearing house like documentation and
a journal on educational research. It recommended to the NCERT the starting of a
documentation and national clearing house and a journal devoted to educational
research. It also suggested setting up of a National Academy of Education and
Research Council (NCERT, 1971, p. 587‐88).
The Challenge of Education saw research in the university system as widespread and
cost‐effective, but major national inputs had gone to labs outside the universities,
which explained the “great deprivation in terms of facilities for frontline work”. The
Challenge was clear on the “need to correct the situation” as without it, neither the
quality of PG education nor quality of research can be improved (MOE, 1985, 49).
Taking note of these sentiments, the NPE, 1986 declared that research in the
universities will be provided increased support and staff (MHRD, 1986, p.13). The
NPE’s POA was forthright in recognizing the demerits of a large number of research
institutions being set up outside the university system. It said that the process of
higher education has to develop in close contact with first class research in frontier
areas of science, technology, humanities and social sciences. If higher education has to
become relevant and solve the most difficult problems, universities must come centre‐
stage. They should grapple with significant scientific problems of industry and national
agencies (GOI, 1986, p.43).
The NPE’s Revised POA, 1992 also declared that higher education and research in
university must get greater priority and resources. It commended the cooperative
research actively promoted by the UGC in the Seventh Five Year Plan and the MOUs
signed to promote research with CSIR (Council of Scientific & Industrial Research), and
other such bodies like DST (Department of Science and Technology), ICSSR (Indian
Council of Social Science Research) and ICHR (Indian Council of Historical Research),
and lauded this approach as the future roadmap (GOI, 1996, p. 105‐06).
14 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
Fifteen years is a not a long enough period in the evolution of the higher education
system in India for changes taking roots and becoming institutionalized even though
the period has witnessed changes in the Central Government many times. Nothing
much seems to have changed even after signing of MOUs for cooperative research
that broke the insularity of research from the university system. Surveying the
situation, the NKC said that as a country, we attempted to create stand‐alone research
institutions, pampered with resources, in the belief that research should be moved out
of universities. In the process, we forgot an essential principle of synergies between
teaching and research that enrich each other, and that it is the universities which are
the natural home for research. The NKC held that it is time to reverse what happened
in the past and make universities the hub of research once again. This would need
changes in resource‐allocation, reward‐systems and mindsets. Substantial grants
should be allocated for research (NKC, 2006, p.4).
The Yashpal Committee was harsher than even the NKC about the growing
tendency to treat teaching and research as two separate activities, backed by separate
policies, programmes and structures. It held that this disjoint between teaching and
research had led to a situation where most of the universities have been reduced to
centres that teach and examine masses, with more and more elite bodies being
created where researchers had no occasion to engage with young minds. Therefore, it
should be necessary for all research bodies to connect with universities in their vicinity
and create teaching opportunities for their researchers and for all universities to be
teaching and research universities (MHRD, 2009, p.14).
The Narayana Murthy Committee also supported the NKC and Yashpal
Committees’ advocacy to strengthen research in the university sector, albeit in a
university and corporate sector tie up mode for this purpose. It made its conviction
known that for India’s higher education institutions to be truly world‐class, research
should be fostered in addition to teaching. It said that this is also a huge opportunity
for the corporate sector to participate in research by supporting doctoral programmes
A. Mathew 15
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
and providing funding for research. A fund to be called ‘The Indian Corporate R&D
(Research and Development) Fund’ should be set up with a corpus of Rs. 5,000 crores,
funded by the Central Government and the corporate. Access to this fund should be
available to all (corporates, individual researchers, academic institutions,
collaborations). The R&D fund should be administered transparently. Tax exemption
to corporates to the extent of 300% of their contribution should be provided by the
government. Doctoral programmes should be launched to enable the corporate
practitioners to pursue these programmes, and Research should also be encouraged
by corporations by providing sponsored research sabbaticals for their employees (GOI,
2012, p.9‐10).
The FICCI (Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry) document,
Vision 2030 projects itself in the year 2030 and visualises the scene of higher education
as it would have developed by that time. It speaks of 15 years of conscious policy,
leading to a mammoth enrolment of 40 million students in higher education in three
categories of institutions, viz. highly selective elite research universities at the top,
comprehensive universities and specialized institutions in the middle, and an array of
highly‐accessible and high‐quality colleges at the bottom. Top‐tier research universities
are centers of excellence for the creation of new knowledge, set up with the vision to
emerge as national and international leaders in research output and intellectual
property. They enroll a select set of talented, research‐oriented students to be taught
by a stellar faculty. Faculty and students at the university attract handsome research
grants and exhibit the greatest international diversity. Going beyond traditional
scientific and applied research, these universities have phenomenally broadened the
scope of India’s research capabilities to new inter‐disciplinary areas of scholarship that
present the greatest opportunity for the creation of new knowledge and have the
highest relevance for India in the new world. While the first tier caters exclusively to
furthering India’s intellectual capital, the other two focus on delivering economic and
social value respectively (EY &FICCI, 2013, p.7‐8).
16 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
The evolving perceptions about research in the discourses of Commissions/
Committees on higher education reveal quite a few significant trends representing
continuity and change. One was about striking a balance in priority and resource
allocation between research in Science and Technology and Social Sciences and
Humanities. Starting from the Education Commission, this emphasis was a persistent
trend until the NKC (2006), the Yashpal Committee (2009) and the Narayana Murthy
Committee (2012). There was never any compromise about research being for the best
minds as a deliberate policy. Even those Commissions/Committees, which explicitly
supported the entry and free run of the private agencies in universities and colleges,
were in favour of going beyond the commercially viable subjects like engineering,
medicine, management and covering the other not‐ so‐ profitable subjects like social
sciences and humanities. However, they also maintained that ideally, research
promotion in commercially non‐viable subjects like social sciences should be the focus
of government institutions.
Quality and Teaching
Content, Curriculum and Standards of Teaching
Even though the commissions and committees took a grim view of the quality
and standards of higher education, they felt that periodic revision of content and
curriculum, improvement in the teaching‐learning approach and methodology,
recruitment of talented faculty and their disciplined work ethic, and reforms in
assessment and evaluation methods would be good enough for its improvement, i.e.
to restore quality and standards in higher education. This was in sharp contrast with
certain other aspects. For instance, in aspects like governance, as would be evident
later, nothing short of an overhaul was seen as adequate. This section surveys the
emerging perceptions on content and curriculum, teaching‐learning approach and
methodology, and reforms in assessment and evaluation.
A. Mathew 17
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
On the issue of standards of teaching, the Radhakrishnan Commission was very
concerned, when it found that “in the methods of instruction in the universities, mass
lectures is the most common”, but, this was not supplemented by any regular work by
students in the library after the lecture. Therefore, it suggested that lectures should be
carefully planned and supplemented by tutorials, library work and written exercises
(MOE 1962, p. 103‐04).
The Commission found the overt dependence on textbooks as even more
disturbing than the mass lecture system and lack of supplementary work by students.
It observed: “One of the evils of the present method of instruction is that it is focused
too much on the text books. The students are prevented from developing their
powers of judgment, as they are taught to depend on text books”. Therefore, it
suggested that “there be no prescribed textbooks for any courses of study” (MOE
1962, p.104‐5). While advocating tutorials as “a kind of intellectual midwifery”, the
Commission also cautioned that it should not become “coaching for exams”. Tutorial
instruction should be developed in all institutions imparting university education,
especially at undergraduate level and seminars at PG level (MOE 1962, p.107).
Emphasizing the importance, Radhakrishnan Commission made known its conviction
that “library is the heart of all university work and is second only to the instructional
staff …” and recommended that university libraries should be greatly improved.
(MOE, 1962, p.111‐12).
In respect of PG courses, the Commission was anxious that the “standards of our
MA and MSc degrees should be raised”, and recommended a certain uniformity of
duration of two years for MA and MSc in case of ordinary BA/BSc, and a duration of
one year in case of BA/B Sc. Honours graduates. The teaching for these degrees should
be properly organized through regular lectures, seminars and laboratory work. The
course should include advanced study of one special subject and training in methods
of research, but not actual research. There should be closest personal touch between
the staff and students.
18 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
Fifteen years’ experience showed certain other issues as becoming very urgent.
One was the “undesirability” of specialization immediately after school and this led the
Education Commission to recommend flexibility in the choice of courses at the
undergraduate level, and not rigidly tie up the subjects at school‐leaving stage, like a
combination of maths, economics and philosophy or physics, chemistry with biology.
This should be applicable in general, special and honours courses at the undergraduate
level (NCERT, 1971, p. 578).
The Education Commission said that at the PG level also, there is an urgent need
for flexibility, allowing for combination courses, consisting of one major subject with
one or two subsidiary or ancillary subjects. The curriculum should be so framed as to
provide general broad‐based course or an intensive training in one or two subjects
(NCERT, 1971, p. 579).
With regard to the broad areas of study, the Education Commission made very
significant recommendations which also indicated newer directions. Social sciences,
the Commission said, is one such area which “should be given a significant place in the
subjects of study in Indian universities”, as it can develop in students and teachers a
spirit of accuracy, critical analysis and investigation which are imperative for any
educational process to promote. It said that social sciences are essential tools for the
study of the conditions and needs of modern society and its development. It provides
educated and trained people in ‘the third sector of the economy’ – the service sector.
There should be adequate provision of scholarships, flexibility in the choice of subjects
in the first degree level, enabling students to combine study of social science subjects
with choice with any other group of subjects. Hence, the Commission recommended
for larger allocation of financial assistance to universities for the development of social
science subjects.
The Education Commission also recommended that a significant and effective
programme of area studies needs to be developed in universities relating to the study
A. Mathew 19
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
of different regions like America, China, Asia – West, East, South, and South‐East,
Africa and Latin America, etc (NCERT, 1971, p. 582‐84). It deprecated the neglect of
study of humanities due to the current pre‐occupation with science and technology
and dependence on advanced countries for emulation. It said that this imbalance
should be redressed by supporting the study of humanities (NCERT, 1971, p. 584‐85).
The Education Commission’s emphasis on the study of social sciences, area studies and
humanities as manifest in its view indicated its anxiety for restoring the balance
between the study of sciences and social sciences in Indian universities. It is
remarkable that more than 40 years later, the NKC and Yashpal Committee, in 2006
and 2009, underlined the judiciousness of exposure to various disciplines like
humanities, social sciences, aesthetics, etc., in an integrated manner, as was reiterated
by the Education Commission in 1964‐66.
Nothing happened to these recommendations for 20 years and the Challenge of
Education – a policy perspective, 1985 again underlined that undergraduate
programmes should be re‐organised in a modular pattern wherein a student should
have the option of combining courses concerned with theoretical knowledge,
languages, communication skills, culture, sports and programmes of a vocational
character. The Challenge argued that there is no reason as to why a person should not
be able to graduate with modules relating to political theory, public administration,
mathematics and word processing. It held that there should be a moratorium on
further expansion of the traditional pattern of colleges and universities, and new
colleges and universities should offer only work‐oriented or socially relevant courses,
catering to carefully identified tasks, having usually a multi‐disciplinary character. Thus,
the Challenge emphasized that concerted action is needed to change the curricula in
line with the expansion of knowledge (MOE, 1985, p. 49).
Till the 1980s, effecting uniformity in duration and ensuring flexibility in the
combination of subjects at both UG and PG levels were viewed to be adequate in
respect of reform and improvement in higher education. In the context of 1980s, as
20 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
indicated by Challenge of Education, reorganization of the courses became a major area
of the reform agenda. The NPE, 1986 and its POA recognized that higher education
programmes “have to be redesigned to meet the growing demands of specialisation,
to provide flexibility in the combination of courses, to facilitate mobility among
courses, programmes and institutions, to update and modernise curricula, to integrate
work/practical experience and participation in creative activities with the learning
processes, and to facilitate reforms in the evaluation procedure. The present rigid
structures do not permit these reforms” (GOI, 1986, p. 40; GOI, 1996, p. 102).
In order to achieve these objectives, the POA 1986 proposed to re‐organise the
Boards of Studies in universities to facilitate course redesign and promote inter‐
disciplinary programmes and interfaces with employment (GOI, 1986, p. 40). But, the
situation in respect of restructuring of courses still remained without any significant
progress in 1992 (GOI, 1996, p. 102).
Examining the scenario, the National Knowledge Commission said that the syllabi
of courses in universities, which remained unchanged for decades, needed to be
upgraded constantly and revised frequently. The process for such revisions should be
streamlined and decentralized, with more autonomy for teachers, through a change in
statutes, wherever necessary. There should be some mode of censure for departments
or universities that do not upgrade their courses regularly. It needs to be recognised
that it is very difficult to introduce new courses or innovative courses in universities
due to departmental divides. Appropriate institutional mechanisms should be put in
place to resolve this problem (MHRD, 2009, p. 17‐19).
The Yashpal Committee felt that much of our higher education is uni‐disciplinary
and advocated curriculum to be focused on exposing the students to the world of
work of different kinds so as to sensitize them to the conditions of the universe of
persons outside of their own. It stated that “There is a need to ask as to what is the
purpose of a university, especially at the undergraduate level, and then use the
A. Mathew 21
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
answers to develop a curriculum”. It further added that “there is a need to expose
students, especially at the undergraduate level, to various disciplines like humanities,
social sciences, aesthetics, etc., in an integrated manner. This should be irrespective of
the discipline they would like to specialize in subsequently” (MHRD, 2009, p.19‐20).
In sum, one could notice that beginning from the Education Commission in mid‐
1960s, and across different commissions in later years, a great discomfort and concern
about outdated content and curriculum was palpable, underlining the need for
periodic revision and greater connection with the real world of life and work,
especially at the under‐graduate levels. The Education Commission saw flexibility in
combination of courses at UG and PG levels as a more pressing need. It did not
perceive any urgent need to call for revision of content and curriculum and syllabus.
The 1980s was a different situation in respect of explosion of knowledge and
expectation of exposure at the under‐graduate level, with regard to content and
curriculum. The connection with the growing demands of specialization and the world
of work became an additional dimension besides the need for flexibility in combination
of courses between and across Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities subjects at
UG and PG levels. A more pointed directive was given to the UGC to undertake this
task across UG and PG level with the involvement of universities and colleges, its
teachers and students. The NKC had found not much headway made on this score and
had become much more severe in its criticism and equally strident in its
recommendations, including censure of universities and colleges found wanting in the
matter of revision of content and curriculum. The Yashpal Committee was most
forthright in calling for revision of content and curricula with a view to achieving a
greater connect between the universities and the world of persons and world of work
outside, an issue with which the Narayana Murthy Committee was in total agreement.
22 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
Assessment and Evaluation
It sounds naïve that the higher education system, much like school education, is
an engagement with what to teach and how to assess and evaluate what has been
learnt by the students. It is surprising that the societies and countries were obdurately
of the view that the engagement with one without the other is incomplete. Thus,
much like the content and curriculum in different subject areas, assessment and
evaluation remained as a constant sore, a troubling and disturbing aspect of the higher
education system. That the system of assessment and evaluation should continue to
defy efforts, at what and how to test what is learnt, has remained the heart and soul of
the discourses in the commissions and committees on education and higher education.
The Radhakrishnan Commission noted that for nearly half a century,
examinations, as they had been in operation, had been recognized as one of the
“worst features” of Indian education. It said that “in our visits to the universities we
heard, from teachers and students alike, the endless tale of how examinations have
become the aim and end of education, how all instruction is subordinated to them,
how they kill all initiative in the teacher and the student, how capricious, invalid,
unreliable and inadequate they are, and how they tend to corrupt the moral standards
of university life.” It went on to declare “We are convinced that if we are to suggest
one single reform in university education, it should be that of the examinations”. It
also suggested the line of reform, viz. the introduction of such valid, reliable, adequate
objective examinations in the universities of India at the earliest possible time. It
warned that without this reform, there is danger that Indian higher education will fall
into chaos (MOE, 1962, p. 285‐86).
The Education Commission did not find any change in the dominating role of
examination in the higher education scene: “In the present system, when the future of
the students is totally decided by one external examination at the end of the year, they
pay minimum attention to the teachers, do little independent study throughout most
A. Mathew 23
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
of the academic year and cram desperately for the final examination. The crippling
effect of external examinations on the quality of work in higher education is so great
that examination reform has become crucial to all progress and has to go hand in hand
with improvements in teaching.” Simultaneously, it also recognized and rued the fact
that “this is one of those areas in education about which one can say that the problem
is known, its significance is realized, the broad lines of the solution ‐ at least to begin
with ‐ are known; but for some reason or other, an effort to implement it on any
worthwhile scale … has not yet been made. What is needed is vigorous and sustained
action” (NCERT, 1971, p.576).
One line of action, said the Commission, is to abolish set syllabuses and the
external examinations and replace them with a system of internal and continuous
evaluation by the teachers themselves, as was already being done in some institutions
like the IITs. However, the Commission was pragmatic enough to recognize that
“external examinations will remain with us for a long time, especially in universities
which have large numbers of affiliated colleges of very unequal standards”. Under the
circumstances, introduction of more frequent, periodical assessment could help
reduce the undue emphasis on the final examination as the sole determinant of
success. Therefore, the Commission recommended that “A system of internal
assessment should be introduced as a supplement to the external examination”. It
also recommended that like the Central Examination Reform Unit in NCERT, the UGC
should immediately set up a similar examination reform unit for higher education to
work in collaboration with the universities (NCERT, 1971, p. 576‐77).
The Challenge of Education was totally in agreement with the Education
Commission in recognizing that “as with secondary education, examination reforms
are urgently needed in respect of Higher Education as well, since the present system
has lost its credibility. A stage has been reached when one university does not
automatically give credence to the grading of another university and all big employers
in the public and private sectors give their own tests to judge the merit of their
24 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
candidates”. It observed that the efforts made in the past in examination reform did
not succeed because periodic internal evaluation would require both teachers and
students to work harder (MOE, 1985, p.48‐49).
In view of the examination system dominating the education scene across the
board, the NPE 1986 declared that “the objective will be to re‐cast the examination
system so as to ensure a method of assessment that is a valid and reliable measure of
student development and a powerful instrument for improving teaching and
learning.” This would mean, the NPE added, the elimination of excessive element of
chance and subjectivity; de‐emphasis of memorisation; continuous and comprehensive
evaluation, spread over the total span of instructional time of the course; introduction
of the semester system; the use of grades in place of marks; and reduction of the
predominance of external examinations (GOI, 1986, p. 48‐49). The NPE (Revised) POA,
1992 was in total agreement with the objective of examination as advocated by the
NPE, (GOI, 1996, p.40).
While surveying the scene nearly a decade and a half later around 2006, the NKC
observed that the nature of annual examinations at universities in India often stifles
the teaching‐learning process because they reward selective and uncritical learning.
There is an acute need to reform this examination system so that it tests
understanding rather than memory. But assessment cannot and should not be based
on examinations alone. There is a clear need for continuous internal assessment which
empowers teachers and students alike, just as it breathes life back into the teaching‐
learning process. Such internal assessment would also foster the students’ analytical
and creative abilities, which are often a casualty in university‐administered annual
examinations. To begin with, internal assessment could have a weight of 25 percent in
the total but this should be raised to 50 percent over time (NKC, 2006, p.3‐4).
The Yashpal Committee did not see any difference in the role of examinations in
the higher education system. It observed that the methods of teaching and evaluation
A. Mathew 25
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
used were not conducive to improve students’ ability for abstract thinking. The
Yashpal Committee suggested a completely different design of assessment and
evaluation, based on grades (MHRD, 2009, p. 17‐18). The Narayana Murthy Committee
and the FICCI Higher Education Summit 2013 neither dealt with this issue at any great
length nor did they come up with any significant recommendations.
Making assessment and evaluation as a continuous process in the academic
calendar of a university and as an integral part of the course transaction process was
stressed way back in 1964‐66. This has been repeated with greater stridency in every
commission/committee till 2012. This has still been not fully implemented in all the
universities and colleges of all States. Resistance, both on the part of students and
faculty, for the extra work involved, explains the dreadfully slow pace of the reforms in
assessment and evaluation. Not only is the adoption of the Semester system uneven,
but the same is the case with adoption of continuous comprehensive evaluation.
Teachers – Recruitment, Working Conditions and Accountability
This section seeks to portray the perceptions of different commissions and
committees on faculty, their recruitment and deployment, their role in improving the
standards and quality of higher education, their discipline and improvement in their
status and condition, etc., all in relation to bring about substantial improvement in the
quality and standards of higher education.
The Radhakrishnan Commission took note of the critical role of teachers in
transmission and extension of knowledge to the young and in the development of
their personality. It recognized that to accomplish the task, competent and qualified
teachers are necessary. The Commission viewed the current status and salary of
teachers, and the deterioration in the standards of teaching and discipline. Higher
salaries that industries and government jobs offered were “taking the cream away,
leaving the staff poorer, envious and discontented”, with the attendant
26 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
demoralization. “All this must pass away if the university is to play its proper role in the
life of the nation” (MOE, 1962, p. 70‐71).
The Commission noticed that in India “there is a great variety of salary scales”
that differed from government to government‐aided and privately managed
institutions, between institutions of professional and technical courses, between
teachers of different subjects and departments, universities to colleges ‐‐‐ implying
different scales of payments for the same type of work (MOE, 1962, p. 73). Examining
the salary scales of Provincial Services, the Commission recommended scales of salary
for different grades of university teachers such as Professors, Readers, and Lecturers
with the starting salary of Rs.900, Rs.600 and Rs.300 respectively and Instructors and
Research Fellows with Rs.250. It also recommended scales of pay of Lecturers, Senior
Posts and Principals of affiliated colleges with no PG classes and those with PG classes
with higher annual increments after certain number of years of experience. The age of
retirement for teachers was to be 60 and professors could be given extension till 64
subject to them being in good health. The Commission also recommended PF and
other benefits as part of service conditions for teachers (MOE, 1962, p. 78‐81).
The Education Commission was convinced that in building up a major university, it
would be necessary to conduct an energetic search throughout the country for
outstanding and promising young persons for recruiting as its teaching and research
staff. For that purpose, each department or faculty should have a specially appointed
personnel advisory committee, which should actively identify such candidates for
appointments and, wherever necessary, offer them advance increments. What is even
more important, they should be assured of opportunities for research and for taking
study leave. There should be room for flexibility in the appointments and promotions.
The UGC should place at the disposal of each university a contingency fund which may
be used to provide more attractive salaries to persons having exceptional promise and
performance (NCERT, 1971, p. 566‐67).
A. Mathew 27
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
The Education Commission also suggested that one of the important
contributions, which the major universities can make to the development of the other
universities and affiliated colleges, is to provide them with teachers of quality. The
steps needed for that purpose should include inducing talented students from the
universities to join the teaching profession and place a majority of them in universities
and colleges, other than their own, to enable them to help in raising standards. The
UGC should also sponsor a scheme of fellowships at Lecturer, Reader and Professor
level to attract outstanding persons to the teaching profession as a temporary
arrangement prior to their being absorbed in regular teaching assignments in the
universities and colleges. The Commission also recommended that invitations should
be extended to promising scholars and scientists from other universities or affiliated
colleges to undertake research and to conduct seminars (say for a term or a session) at
one of the centres of advanced study (NCERT, 1971, p. 568‐69).
On the issue of faculty selection, the National Commission on Teachers in Higher
Education (NCT‐HE) was “of the view that it is extremely important to make a rigorous
merit‐based selection at the entry level into the teaching profession”. The Commission
also agreed with the view that the fragmentation of the educational system, on the
basis of language, region, caste and religion, should be counter‐balanced by some
selections on the basis of a widely cast net. Hence, we have recommended an All India
Test and only those who have obtained grade B+ in such a test on a seven‐ point scale,
should be eligible for consideration (NCT‐HE, 1985, p. 121).
Although said in the context of management efficiency of the institution, the
NCT‐HE’s view about faculty is equally relevant in the context of teachers’
accountability. It observed that “all the educational changes and reforms, with all the
money at our disposal will prove ineffective, and may be counterproductive, if the
system lacks coherence, is afflicted with lack of discipline and suffers from poor work
ethics or plain unwillingness to work conscientiously… our concern with end results
or performance of the system leads us to say that a two‐fold policy must be pursued:
28 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
we must give the teacher a place of honour, good salary, prospects of a good career
depending on performance, adequate personal and professional facilities, we must set
up mechanisms to remove his specific grievances, but we must demand work and
responsibility from him. The management has to be strengthened in order that the
imbalance, which has crept in between democracy and accountability, is corrected.
This requires modification in Acts and Statutes, and also administration without fear or
favour, and accountability on the part of "managers" too” (NCT‐HE, 1985, p. 118).
The Challenge of Education, which diagnosed the practice of selection and
promotion from the time of Education Commission, found it in a state of serious
credibility crisis. The Challenge steered clear of questioning the policy milieu for
pursuing excellence in the field of university and college education, i.e. the practice of
attracting and retaining talented young scholars by offering better emoluments –
better than the average scales of pay of university and college teachers and other
facilities like housing. Seeing the serious compromises in the current scene, the
Challenge underlined the need for great care in laying down the norms and criteria for
such practices (MOE, 1985, p. 55). This concern for not diluting excellence and merit
was also evident in the promotion policy. The Challenge found the merit promotion
policy had deteriorated to promotion by seniority. The Challenge called for a serious re‐
think and re‐working of the norms in order to protect promotion by merit rather than
promotion by age and years of service, as otherwise it would threaten to “turn away
young people with talent and imagination from the teaching profession which does
not distinguish between mediocrity and genius”. More importantly, and within the
ranks of university and college teachers, if merit is not recognized for promotion,
“there will be no way of creating the urge and compulsion for the pursuit of good
teaching…. and there will be no incentive left for self‐study, experimentation and
research and pursuit of excellence, which has been the concern of universities” (MOE,
1985, p. 55, 57).
A. Mathew 29
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
The NPE’s POA 1986 perceived that the “present system does not accord
teachers a proper economic and social status, opportunities for professional and
career development, proper orientation in concept, techniques and value system to
fulfill their role and responsibilities.” In order to achieve this, it proposed to organise
specially designed orientation programmes in teaching methodologies, pedagogy,
educational psychology, etc., for all new entrants at the level of lecturers, and
refresher courses every five years.
Reviewing the progress, NPE’s Revised POA (1992) observed that the 48
Academic Staff Colleges (ASCs) constituted a concrete progress for strengthening the
academic and pedagogic capabilities of newly‐ appointed lecturers. The scheme of
ASC was reviewed in 1991 by UGC and it endorsed the recommendations to further
improve and strengthen the scheme, including its implementation by distance
education mode by IGNOU (Indira Gandhi National Open University) (MHRD, 1996, p.
66).
The National Knowledge Commission stressed the need for a conscious effort to
attract and retain talented faculty members, as otherwise we will lose talented
students who are potential faculty members with choices that are far more attractive
in other professions in India or in the academic profession outside India. It is necessary
to provide working conditions in the form of office space and research support
together with housing. This must be combined with some incentives and rewards for
performance. The NKC found another hurdle to the talent hunt as “Universities do not
always choose the best, in part because of native‐son/daughter policies which leave
them to select their own former students. This tends to lower quality and foster
parochialisation in universities” (NKC, 2006, p. 4). Therefore, for the sake of cross‐
pollination between universities, the NKC suggested introduction of a ceiling of say
one‐half or even one‐third of the proportion of faculty members for hiring from within
the university. This would almost certainly engender greater competition and more
transparency in faculty appointments (NKC, 2006).
30 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
For promoting quality and standards in higher education institutions, the NKC felt
it necessary to introduce rewards for performance. Even conceding that universities
are different from the hierarchical worlds in governments and corporate structures,
NKC believed that “time has come to think of salary differentials within and between
Universities as a means of attracting and retaining talented faculty members. The
salary differentiation among teachers within the same university needs to reflect the
opportunity costs for teachers in some departments. This will help retain talent in
some disciplines wherein the remuneration in the market is much higher than in other
subjects. Universities cannot compete with salaries elsewhere, but they should try to
provide a comfortable minimum for all, with some premium for those who perform
(NKC, 2006, p. 14).
The Yashpal Committee kept the socio‐cultural aims enshrined in the Constitution
as the guiding principles and role of education. Liberation from inequality and social
injustices prevailing in Indian society are the aims of education. Gender and caste and
economic class differences are pervasive markers of inequality in society as well as in
education. The Yashpal Committee noted with concern these inequalities in the
composition of the university and college faculty as well. It is worth recalling the NCT‐
HEs suggestion that the fragmentation of the education system in the selection of
faculty, on the basis of language, region, caste and religion, should be counter‐
balanced by the selection process on the basis of a widely cast net – all India basis
(NCT‐HE, 1985). That this had not happened is evident when the Yashpal Committee
said that in the composition of the faculty, the representation of regions other than
the one in which a university is located can serve as a valuable means of assessing a
university’s resolve to avoid parochial tendencies that are commonly noticed. By
definition, a university is a place where India’s diversity must find adequate and visible
expression (MHRD, 2009, p. 27).
In its presentation of the higher education scenario, the Vision 2030 document of
the FICCI Summit was patently pro‐industry in the matter of giving preference to
A. Mathew 31
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
industry experience in faculty recruitment, paid fellowships for managerial personnel
to take up teaching in colleges and universities for a fixed duration, easing of norms to
recruit best talent from India and outside, and tenure‐ based faculty positions as in the
private and corporate sectors (EY & FICCI, 2013, p. 36‐37). Across all commissions and
committees on higher education, the perspective guiding talent hunt, strong advocacy
for providing all the conducive academic and professional working conditions and
promotion policy, as the most critical factors in higher education, have been kept
above any iota of doubt.
Governance and Reorganisation of Higher Education
In respect of what ails the higher education system, the various
Commissions/Committees alluded to the deterioration in standards and quality as a
major parameter. Content and curriculum, quality of teachers and the teaching
methods, assessment and evaluation were seen as responsible for the deterioration.
However, as seen in the previous section, in respect of these aspects, improvement
and reform were viewed with optimism to restore quality and standards of higher
education. But that was not the perception about governance and management of the
universities and the higher education system. The governance of universities i.e., the
different bodies/structures of university management is one domain in the higher
education system which had come under maximum strain, pressure, interference and
disrepute from the 1970s and ‘80s. This is significant given the tradition of autonomy
that universities enjoyed for long in India. The solution envisaged in Commissions/
Committees on education, in general, and higher education, in particular, is nothing
short of a complete reorganization or overhaul of the management system, not only at
the institutional level but also at the level of the higher education system as a whole.
Two developments combined to force national attention on reorganization of
the regulatory system governing higher education and reorganization of the university
governance and management at Institutional (university) levels. One was the
32 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
unplanned proliferation of the universities and colleges sponsored by the state
governments without conforming to UGC norms of facilities. It seriously undermined
the statutory role of UGC in coordinating the development and maintaining standards
of higher education. The other was the prevailing socio‐political pressures and
interference in the autonomy of the universities and colleges, calling for radical
changes in their governance, and management bodies and their roles and their
functions. It was even worse with AICTE, with the proliferation of the capitation fee
colleges in technical, management and professional education. In fact, the erosion of
the university autonomy and infringement in the statutory authority of regulatory
bodies like UGC and AICTE gave rise to the view of a national authority on higher
education subsuming other regulatory authorities for different sectors like medicine,
law, engineering and technical etc. The purpose was to create a single window clearing
system and keep socio‐political pressures and interferences at bay.
It would be well to remember the difference between the academic and the
management factors that led to the decline in standards and quality of higher
education. Unlike the decline in academic dimensions, the deterioration in the
management of the university and governance of higher education system by external
pressures was a phenomenon of the post‐Education Commission era. The 1960s could
be seen as the formative period in the evolution of higher education in Independent
India, and the Education Commission’s enumeration of the different bodies of
university governance and their roles and functions as the benchmark to study the
pressures and interferences experienced later responsible for the deterioration and
degeneration of the higher education system.
Governance of Universities before NPE 1986
The Education Commission was of the view that the proper sphere of university
autonomy lies in the selection of students, appointment and promotion of teachers
and determination of courses of study, methods of teaching and selection of areas and
A. Mathew 33
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
problems of research. The effective discharge of these core functions, viz. teaching,
research and service to the community requires autonomy from regimentation of
ideas or pressure from party and power politics (NCERT, 1971, p.596‐97).
Autonomy within University: The Academic Council of the university should be the
supreme body vested with final authority on all academic matters and the function of
non‐academic elements should be to represent, not impose, the wider interests of the
society. Departments of universities are its main operational units on the academic
side. Administrative and financial powers should be delegated to the Committee of
Management under HODs to discuss academic programmes related facilities (NCERT,
1971, p.598).
Greater Freedom to Colleges: A joint committee of teachers and students should
discuss common problems and difficulties. The head – the VC or Principal should be
kept in touch. A central committee of institutional head, representatives of staff and
students should sort out common problems rather than be allowed to accumulate
bitterness (NCERT, 1971, p. 589‐99).
Autonomy within the University System: A degree conferred by a university should
be automatically recognized by other universities in the country. There should be
consultative machinery between universities, the UGC, IUB (Inter‐University Board)
and the Government Departments at the Centre and the State to decide about
manpower requirements in different courses of study and research. One of the most
important functions of the UGC is to support and strengthen the autonomy of the
universities (NCERT, 1971, p. 602).
University Finances: State universities obtain their development grants based on
the reports of the UGC appointed Visiting Committees. The Education Commission
was not inclined to the idea that the UGC should give 100% of the development grants
without depending on the state government’s matching grants because of the
widespread delays in many cases (NCERT, 1971, p. 604‐5).
34 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
Vice‐Chancellor: Appointment and Role: Vice‐Chancellor (VC) is one who is
expected to embody the spirit of academic freedom and the principles of good
management in a university. He should ensure that the executive wing of the
university assists the academic community in all its activities (NCERT, 1971, p. 610‐11).
The VC’s appointment should be left to the university. As suggested by the University
Education Commission, the practice was that the Chancellor appointed the name
finalized by the EC of the University. But, the Education Commission was inclined to
follow the selection by the Visitor from a panel of three names, suggested by a
Committee of three persons – a nominee of the university, a nominee of the
Chancellor and a nominee of the UGC Chairman (NCERT, 1971, p. 611). The VC should be
a distinguished educationist or eminent scholar of any discipline or profession. He
should be appointed on a full‐time basis with a salary and other perks for a term of five
years, renewable for only one more term. As suggested by the Committee of Model
Act for Universities, adequate powers should be vested with the VC for effective
working of the university (NCERT, 1971, p. 612‐13).
Legislation for Universities: The important authorities of the university include the
Court, the Executive Council (EC) and the Academic Council (AC). The Court is the
policy‐ making body of the university with about 100 members, with a lay element. It
includes ex‐officio members, alumni, representatives of learned professions and
industry, and nominees of the EC, the Visitor and MPs (Members of Parliament) in case
of Central Universities and MLAs (Members of Legislative Assembly), in case of State
universities. The Court is not concerned with the details of academic matters or
day‐to‐day administration (NCERT, 1971, p. 614).
The Executive Council: It should be a small body of 15‐20 members, half internal
and half external, headed by the VC and PVC and Rector as ex‐officio (NCERT, 1971,
p.614).
A. Mathew 35
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
Academic Council: The AC should be the sole authority to decide courses of study
and standards. There should be a Standing Committee of the AC for more frequent
meetings for academic matters.
Academic Planning Boards: There should be permanent planning and evaluation
machinery dealing with long‐term plans, new ideas and programmes and periodic
evaluation of the university (NCERT, 1971, p.614‐15).
The late 1960s was a period of student unrest in the institutions of higher
education. The student unrest and violence at Banaras Hindu University during 1968‐
69, which led to a Commission of Inquiry under Gajandragadkar, was too recent to
ignore. The Banaras Hindu University Inquiry Commission came out with far‐reaching
recommendations to stop recurrence of unrest in university and college campuses
(MOE & YS, 1969). Almost simultaneously, the Conference of Vice‐Chancellors in 1969
suggested to the UGC to appoint special committees to study the problems of
governance of universities and the system of affiliation, especially in governance
matters. UGC appointed two committees, one on governance of universities under
P.B. Gajendragadkar, and another on colleges under Rev. P.T. Chandi which later got
subsumed with the Gajendragadkar committee itself (UGC, 1971, p. 1‐2).
The Gajendragadkar committee on governance of universities and colleges felt
that university should keep lines of communication open between different
constituents of the university and devise proper machinery for removal of grievances
so that there was no reason for eruption of violence or adoption of pressure tactics
and agitational methods. The university should not claim to be a state within a state
and, hence, was subject to the jurisdiction of the courts established by law. But the
universities and all its constituents should tell the state to be firm but humane while
dealing with unrest within the university (UGC, 1971, p. 10).
The Gajendragadkar committee was of the firm conviction that UGC should be
the custodian of university autonomy and the State governments should consult UGC
36 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
on all matters pertaining to universities in the State. It also said that the State
governments should consult the UGC before introducing any law on universities or
making any change in university governance. Different constituents of the university
should work together in policy, planning and implementation of plans of development
of the university as also in the case of different colleges in the affiliating university
(UGC, 1971, p. 15‐16). The system of election of teachers to the university and college
statutory bodies, that was based on Radhakrishnan Commission Report in 1949, in
keeping with the principles of democracy, was perceived to have brought in
factionalism and other evils. Therefore, the Gajendragadkar Committee advocated the
principle of rotation rather than election. In the case of affiliating universities, the
affiliated colleges could elect two representatives – one senior and one junior teacher‐
who could constitute an “electoral college” from which the representatives to
different statutory bodies of the university could be elected (UGC, 1971, p. 20‐21).
The Gajendragadkar Committee underlined the supremacy of the Academic
Council as the most important body of the universities and the Boards of Studies,
separately for UG and PG, in respect of their respective disciplines. This system would
be helpful to initiate academic restructuring and modernization of the curriculum and
syllabus. The academic and administrative wings of the university need to work in a
spirit of cooperation and understanding and the human touch was essential in their
university campus and the classrooms and the university should enjoy an environment
of autonomy that was critical to the pursuit of learning (UGC, 1971, p. 22‐23).
Nothing very substantive seemed to have happened in streamlining the
governance and management of institutions of higher education through the 1970s
and the '80s. And, the tension over the disequilibrium between the roles and
responsibilities of the Vice‐ Chancellors and other bodies and also over the lack of
accountability of the various bodies concerned with academic and managerial
functions was made public in a poignant fashion at the national level by the Challenge
of Education document in 1985, some 20 years after the Education Commission. The
A. Mathew 37
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
Challenge of Education was candid in pointing out: “There is a general feeling that
radical changes are required in the present system of management” in the relationship
between various faculties, decision‐making bodies and the Vice‐Chancellor.
Challenge of Education also pointed out that “there is considerable divergence of
views” in the prevailing socio‐political milieu about the relative autonomy or the
accountability of colleges and universities. The Challenge hoped that perhaps it would
be easier to strengthen the autonomy of the universities if a viable system of the
accountability of a university as a whole and various faculties and bodies within the
university could be established and a suitable system of incentives and disincentives
could also be fashioned on this basis (MOE, 1985, p. 114). The NPE and its POA, 1986, as
well as the Revised POA 1992 did not address the issue of lack of accountability of
different university bodies or of the VC, etc. Instead the NPE and its POA, both in 1986
and 1992, dwelt on the mechanisms for the coordinated development of higher
education at state and national levels that are capable of holding the socio‐political
and commercial pressures at bay. Among the “urgent steps” that the NPE, 1986
promised to take “to protect the system from degradation” [a euphemism for socio‐
political pressures and interferences], included “State‐ level planning and coordination
of higher education … done through Councils of Higher Education. The UGC and these
Councils will develop coordinative methods to keep a watch on standards” (MHRD,
1986, p.13)
Perspective on Re‐organisation of Higher Education System
Mechanism for Coordinated Development of Higher Education at State Level: NPE’s
POA, 1986 recognized that there “is at present no effective machinery for planning
and coordination of higher education at the State level and co‐ordination of State level
programmes with those of the UGC.” In order to fill this gap, the POA proposed to: (a)
set up State Councils of Higher Education (SCHE) as Statutory Bodies, (b) have, for the
guidance of State Governments, model provisions framed by the UGC, setting out the
38 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
composition and powers of the State Councils, and (c) prepare consolidated
programmes of higher education in each State. Despite MHRD and UGC efforts, SCHE
was established only in Andhra Pradesh and POA 1992 resolved to pursue the efforts
to establish SCHE in all States in VIII Plan (GOI, 1996, p.132).
It is very sobering to see the NPE declare its determination: “In the interest of
greater coordination and consistency in policy, sharing of facilities and developing inter‐
disciplinary research, a national body covering higher education in general,
agricultural, medical, technical, legal and other professional fields will be set up”
(MHRD 1986, p. 13). It is sobering to see the NPE view that the failure to safeguard
against the inconsistency in policy could wreak havoc, as being reiterated by the NKC
some 20 years later, when it observed that: “The other regulators, say in the sphere of
professional education, are often inconsistent in their adherence to principles. There
are several instances where an engineering college or a business school is approved,
promptly, in a small house of a metropolitan suburb without the requisite teachers,
infrastructure or facilities, but established universities experience difficulties in
obtaining similar approvals. Such examples can be multiplied” (NKC, 2006, p. 9).
As a sequel to the NPE’s declaration, the NPE’s POA, 1986 also envisaged the
establishment of a national body covering higher education in general, agriculture,
medical, technical, legal and other professional fields for greater coordination and
consistency of policy, sharing of facilities, and developing inter‐disciplinary research. It
recognized that “presently, this responsibility is shared by a number of agencies, like
separate structures for higher education in agriculture, engineering and medicine, etc.
This separation in the decision‐ making and funding mechanisms has become more of a
problem for allowing various disciplines”. In order to remedy this problem, the NPE,
1986 and its POA proposed to “establish an apex body at the national level for higher
education to deal with policy aspects and to undertake integrated planning in respect
of post‐graduate education and inter‐disciplinary research.” But, in the meantime, the
POA was prepared to go along with the current practice, viz. separate bodies would
A. Mathew 39
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
be set up on the lines of University Grants Commission for areas such as agriculture,
medicine, engineering, distance learning, etc (GOI, 1986, p. 45‐46). The Revised POA
admitted that consensus eluded on the national apex body, viz. National Council for
Higher Education (NCHE), and the POA, 1992 could only hope to have such a body “as
soon as possible” (MHRD, 1996, p. 132).
The NPE’s POA 1986 proposed to develop a mechanism for accreditation and
assessment for maintaining and raising the quality of institutions of higher education.
The POA declared that to that end, the UGC will take the initiative to establish
Accreditation and Assessment Council as an autonomous body. Nothing much seems
to have happened in the intervening 5‐6 years and, it was only in 1992 that the UGC
“resolved to set up a National Accreditation and Assessment Council” (NAAC) to which
the Revised POA committed that the Government will accord its approval.
The Ambani Committee (2000) was more particular about creating substantial
space for private enterprises for establishing “high quality secondary education in
every taluka” and for government leaving the space predominantly to the private
sector in the establishment of world‐class higher education facilities at every district
headquarters and state‐of‐the‐art professional research‐ based institutions in all
disciplines. It argued for insulating private enterprises in higher education from socio‐
political interference by government legislation in the name of autonomy. This was
also its prescription to the higher education institutions and system at large even with
respect to the state sector institutions (GOI, 2000, p. 14‐15).
Thus, nothing happened to the NPE’s proposal in 1986 and 1992 on the
establishment of a National Council for Higher Education and the different sectors of
higher education continued to be governed by each sector’s regulatory body like UGC
for general higher education, AICTE for technical and management education, MCI
(Medical Council of India) for medicine, BCI (Bar Council of India) for law, etc. And this
issue was visited only in 2006 by NKC, some 20 years after the NPE proposal for
40 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
establishment of an apex national body for the entire gamut of higher education,
covering the various disciplines.
There was a forerunner to the NKC in respect of reform in the structures of
governance of universities, and that was the CABE “Committee on Autonomy of
Higher Education” under the Chairmanship of Shri Kanti Biswas, Hon’ble Minister for
Education, Government of West Bengal, in 2005 to: (a) suggest measures for
enhancing the autonomy of higher education institutions, especially those with
potential for excellence; and (b) institutionalize regulatory provisions for promoting
autonomy and accountability of higher education institutions [HEIs] (MHRD, 2005,
p. xiv). Based on interaction with a large number and variety of stakeholders acorns
the country through workshops and questionnaires, the perceptions were analysed
and the emerging recommendations were grouped along academic, financial and
administrative autonomy. Some of the salient ones included (MHRD, 2005).
Academic Matters: There is a need to grant autonomy to individual HEIs for
designing curriculum, with the Universities providing broad framework and leaving
adequate scope to teachers to try out pedagogical innovations. The curriculum should
be revised with the guidance of apex bodies’ like UGC and AICTE. While ensuring that
new frontier areas of knowledge are included in the curriculum, the HEIs should also
ensure that certain other subjects of vital concern such as environmental education,
consumer education, human rights education, education in human values, population
education, gender equality, disaster management, etc., are also introduced as a part of
undergraduate curriculum. All universities should quickly shift towards adoption of
choice‐based credit courses along with semester system to ensure flexibility in the
academic structure and students’ mobility both within the country and abroad. All
traditional universities should have, besides their conventional courses, linkages with
open and distance education universities to enhance the enrolment in higher
education system. Each HEI should set up an Internal Quality Assurance Cell to
A. Mathew 41
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
continuously assess its performance on objective and pre‐defined parameters (MHRD,
2005, p. xiv).
Appointment of teachers on contract basis with a paltry amount may be
disbanded. Institutions should be allowed to fill up all posts expeditiously in a time‐
bound manner. All universities should adopt the practice of performance appraisal of
teachers through self‐appraisal, based on objective parameters. All HEIs need not
focus on all areas of study, but must have flexibility to offer courses according to new
and emerging realities of the region and the country. Universities should use the
services of post‐graduate and research students as research assistants and teaching
assistants to provide them with practical hands‐on‐experience and also enable them to
earn to meet their personal expenses (MHRD, 2005, p. xiv‐xv).
Administrative Matters: Acts, statutes and ordinances of universities should be
reviewed for their better management as also for granting autonomous status to
affiliating colleges. The present system of assigning fixed number of Professors,
Readers and Lecturers to each department should be replaced by leaving it to
institutional head with autonomy to determine both the rank and number of these
positions as per the need and development plan of the institution. All bodies and
authorities in the universities and colleges should have representatives from the
stakeholders concerned with a mix of elected and nominated representatives. The
selection of Vice‐Chancellors should be done with utmost care through a search‐cum‐
selection procedure. Each university may set up a grievance redressal mechanism to
ensure that grievances of students, both academic and non‐academic, are addressed in
an expeditious manner. There is a need for training and development of academic
administrators in HEIs to improve the quality of governance (MHRD, 2005, p. xv‐xvi).
Financial Matters: One‐third of entire investment in education sector should be
made on higher education. All government and government‐aided universities and
colleges should be brought under the financial support of UGC by significantly
42 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
increasing its present level of allocation. Since full public financing of higher education
is no longer possible, given the overall funds constraints, HEIs should search for
alternate funding sources, and should be encouraged, facilitated and even incentivised
to generate internal resources. The Central and State Governments should set ceilings
on fee levels to ensure that HEIs do not indulge in malpractice in relation to fees. The
practice of financial disclosure standards should be introduced in self‐financing
institutions to bring about a greater level of transparency in their financial
management. HEIs should be given complete autonomy to undertake consultancy
assignments and sponsored research projects (MHRD, 2005, p. xvi‐xvii).
General: The functioning of the UGC needs to be reviewed as per changing
realities to make it more effective for maintenance of standards. There is also a need
to evolve a coordination mechanism between the UGC and the various professional
Councils. All HEIs need to be given full autonomy to establish linkages for academic
and research collaboration with their counterpart academic and research institutions,
industry and professional organizations, both in India and abroad. There is a need to
encourage private participation with adequate social control in higher education to
enhance access and capacity, supplement government funding and bring higher
education closer to the job market. A code of professional ethics should be developed
by national level teachers’ organizations, in consultation with HEIs, and its observance
must be ensured. Norms of Accountability through open and participative means
should be developed by HEIs in consultation with the faculty (MHRD, 2005, p. xviii‐xix).
Examining the higher education scene, the NKC observed that there can be no
doubt that higher education has made a significant contribution to the economic
development, social progress and political democracy in Independent India. But it has
weaknesses, in fact a quiet crisis that runs deep and it needs a systematic overhaul,
notwithstanding a massive expansion – nothing short of 1500 universities. The NKC
discussed the reforms at the level of university and also at the level of the higher
education system.
A. Mathew 43
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
University Governance: The NKC said that there is an acute “need for reform in the
structures of governance of universities.” It held that “the present system is flawed; it
neither preserves autonomy nor promotes accountability. The autonomy of
universities is eroded by interventions from governments and intrusions from political
processes. This must be stopped. At the same time, there is not enough transparency
and accountability in universities. This must be fostered” (NKC, 2006, p. 5). In its view,
some reforms in the beginning included: (i) the appointments of Vice‐Chancellors
should be based on search processes and peer judgment alone. These appointments
must be freed from direct or indirect intervention on the part of governments, and
once appointed, VCs should have tenure of six years; (ii) the size and composition of
University Courts, Academic Councils, and Executive Councils slows down decision‐
making processes and, sometimes, constitutes an impediment to change. University
Courts, with a size of 500 plus, which are more a ritual than substance, could be
dispensed with. Large ACs does not meet often. Even when they meet, they are slow
in decision‐ making. Therefore, Standing Committees of ACs, with subject
representation, should be created for frequent meetings and expeditious decisions.
The Vice‐Chancellor should, then, function as a Chief Executive Officer with authority
and flexibility to govern with the advice and consent of the EC. The NKC said
“experience suggests that implicit politicisation has made governance of universities
exceedingly difficult and much more susceptible to entirely non‐academic
interventions from outside. This problem needs to be recognised and addressed in a
systematic manner not only within universities but also outside, particularly in
governments, legislatures and political parties” (NKC, 2006, p. 5).
With regard to the reforms at higher education system level, the NKC said that
there is a clear need to establish an Independent Regulatory Authority for Higher
Education (IRAHE). It is necessary, NKC said, for two reasons. First, in India, it requires
an Act of Legislature or Parliament to set up a University, which, in itself, is a
formidable barrier. The second, as we seek to expand the higher education system,
44 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
entry norms will be needed for private institutions and public‐private partnerships. An
institutional framework for this purpose must be put in place. That would minimize
conflicts of interest by keeping stakeholders at an arm’s‐length distance. It would
replace the present over‐regulated but under‐governed system, through more
appropriate forms of intervention.
The NKC reinforced the need for reform by referring to the inconsistency of
policy of the different regulatory bodies in higher and technical education. It said that
at present getting UGC sanction for funds to a university or college is possible only if
UGC is satisfied that the existing institutions in the state are not adequate to serve the
needs of the state. An improbable proposition. The other regulators, say in the sphere
of professional education [referring to AICTE], are often inconsistent in their
adherence to principles. The challenge is, therefore, to design a regulatory system that
increases the supply of good institutions and fosters accountability in those
institutions. The NKC hoped that the proposed IRAHE will not only rationalize the
principles on which entry is regulated but also streamline other functions of the
regulator such as: (i) Accreditation: quality benchmarking. (ii) Disbursement of public
funds. (iii) Access: fees or affirmative action. (iv) License: to practice profession (NKC,
2006).
The purpose of creating an IRAHE, the NKC added, is to separate these functions.
The proposed IRAHE shall be responsible for setting the criteria and deciding on entry
and license agencies to take care of accreditation. UGC will deal only with disbursing
public funds. Access will be governed by state legislation on reservations and other
forms of affirmative action. Professional associations may set eligibility for conducting
a profession. All other regulatory agencies such as the AICTE will need to be abolished
while the MCI and the BCI will be limited to their role as professional associations. It
goes on to discuss the membership and composition and roles and functions of the
IRAHE (NKC, 2006, p. 9‐10).
A. Mathew 45
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
Taking on from the NKC position of multiplicity of regulatory bodies over
regulating and stifling innovation and creativity, the Yashpal Committee argued for
creating a regular body to cover the various spheres of higher education, ensure
accountability and also evoke confidence in the academic institutions and academic
body at large. It pointed out that bodies like the AICTE, ICAR, MCI, etc., had helped in
focusing attention on specialized areas. But, at the same time, it fragmented the
higher educational sector in the country from a policy perspective, and led to
undesirable cubicalization of knowledge, unwarranted fragmentation of disciplines
and separation of knowledge from application and skills. There is a need to create an
agency that could take over the regulatory functions of entry and content and
curriculum in respect of all disciplines (MHRD, 2009, p. 50‐51).
The Yashpal Committee recalled that the idea of a single regulatory body for
higher education has been in discussion for more than two decades and, hence, it
would be necessary to have a single apex body in the field of higher education that
would treat all knowledge areas in an integrated manner and work towards
convergences with overarching regulatory powers. It was, therefore, proposed that
the academic functions of all these professional bodies be subsumed under an apex
body for Higher Education, to be called the National Commission for Higher Education
and Research (NCHER). It would take over the academic functions of the existing
regulatory bodies and these could (i) conduct regular qualifying tests for professionals
in their respective fields – a Bar Council exam for practicing advocates, for example; (ii)
prescribe the syllabi for such exams and leave it to the universities to design their
curriculum including such syllabi (MHRD, 2009, p. 53‐54).
The Yashpal Committee made it clear that the NCHER was not just a change in
the nomenclature of UGC or any other existing regulatory body. The structure and
composition of the proposed NCHER was meant to insulate it from political and other
external interferences from the government of the day. The Yashpal Committee also
assured that the NCHER would perform its regulatory function without interfering
46 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
with academic freedom and institutional autonomy. From the current inspection‐
approval method, the NCHER would move to a verification and authentication system
(MHRD, 2009, p. 55‐56).
The Yashpal Committee also advised that keeping in mind the federal nature of
our country and the role of the States in the field of higher education, it would be
necessary to create Higher Education Councils in the states which would harmonize in
creating a comparable national system of higher education that would also allow
different kinds of institutions, created by the state or the centre, to grow on equal
footing, as was the case with the SCHECs in some states (MHRD, 2009, p. 57).
In reference to restructuring universities, the Yashpal Committee said that
complete autonomy of institutions of higher learning is essential for free pursuit of
knowledge ‐‐ this foundational principle should guide and govern restructuring of
universities. University autonomy is closely linked to sources of finance and the legal
framework and rules and regulations governing its operations. Even in the light of
these considerations, the Indian institutions of higher learning need to: (a) Be freed
from control of both government and ‘for‐profit’ private agencies in matters of not
just academics but also finance and administration; (b) Collectively frame a transparent
set of rules to guide their regular functioning and submit themselves to an
internationally recognized process of evaluation; and (c) Foster a culture of
independent assertion of ideas, guarding of institutional prerogatives from external
interference, transparency and accountability for decisions taken (MHRD, 2009,
p. 58‐59). The Yashpal Committee identified the critical hurdles in the university
autonomy, such as the strong centralization at all levels of the university, including the
VC’s and Registrars. This rigidity, it felt, was largely derived from the controls currently
exercised by the governments, like in delays in appointment of VCs, faculty positions’
approval, funds for new programmes, disbursement of funds, etc.
A. Mathew 47
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
The Yashpal Committee also pointed out that the leadership of universities is
often in the hands of government administrators as well as executive councils or
similar agencies that are far removed from the institutions and do not have a good
understanding of the issues of concern, needs of development and growth of
institutions. In addition, these councils are too large in numbers to make nuanced
decisions. The VCs, most often, have low degrees of freedom in terms of
administrative stretch, and faculty often has even lower degrees of freedom vis‐a‐vis
the university authorities.
The Yashpal Committee argued that universities need the autonomy to operate in
a healthy competitive setting. The leadership of the university must be driven by the
objectives of the institution and lean on government only for macro policies. The
governance structure of a university should be revamped so as to make it more
democratic and efficient in its functioning. The academic decisions need to be freed
from excessive bureaucratic controls, both within as well as outside the university. The
role of a VC is to provide academic leadership to the university, develop and execute
the vision of the university, including its growth, and to ensure that university is
academically and financially healthy, with the Yashpal Committee going on to
elaborate the skills required for such leadership (MHRD, 2009, p. 61‐62).
True to its premise and raison d’etre, the Committee on Corporate Participation
argued for building a world‐ class higher education system wherein higher education
institutions (HEIs) should enjoy complete autonomy – financial, academic and
administrative‐ but should also have stringent accountability framework. The financial
autonomy should include freedom to decide the amount of students’ fees, to raise and
manage funds, to spend funds on institution’s needs without requiring government
permission. The government support could be restricted to meet the fees of students
of reservation quota. On matters of funds raising and spending, government should
not interfere. The academic autonomy should include freedom to decide content and
curriculum, syllabus and text books, student evaluation and granting of degrees and
48 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
diplomas, freedom to invite and sponsor national and international students and
faculty on best suitable compensation without seeking government approval. The
administrative autonomy would imply freedom on admissions, besides current
reservations, starting of new courses and campuses, within and outside India, on its
own or in collaboration with foreign institutions and decisions on inviting and sending
students, faculty and staff. This freedom should be subject to the deliverables,
reflected in an MOU, in the cases of HEIs being funded by the government, but not
those not dependent on government funds ( GOI, 2012, p. 4‐5).
The Committee also observed that autonomy is directly linked to the aspect of
governance. In other words, it implied that autonomy and freedom of the
management bodies and governance functions, permitted to the institution, would
have a direct relation with accountability and deliverables. Keeping this in mind, the
constitution of the different governing bodies, with minimum representation from the
government and maximum representation from industry and corporate‐friendly
elements from civil society was advocated (GOI, 2012, p. 5‐6).
As a sum up of this section on governance, it can be seen that the three
committees on HE viz., the Ambani Group (2000), Narayana Murthy Committee (2012)
and FICCI Summit (2013) view higher education from the lens of participation of private
sector, with the higher education system becoming conducive for this purpose i.e.,
leaving the dominant space and say for the corporate sectors in the governance and
management of the sector of higher education. They look at, examine and make
recommendations on all vital elements of higher education from that angle alone, such
as the industry‐orientation in vision of expansion, content and curriculum and the
corporate sector culture in organization, governance and management of the system
and personnel and in financing. It is important to grasp the essence of the difference.
These dimensions distinguish these three reports from all other reports that were
produced by those largely involved in the system of higher education from the
academia and administration. The public and private interests are the pervasive focus
A. Mathew 49
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
of the diagnosis and prognosis in terms of solutions and recommendations in respect
of these two categories of commissions/committees on higher education.
Privatization and Private Higher Education
Privatisation of Higher Education
The pressure for expansion of the HE system by compromising the norms of
standards as set by the UGC could be held at bay till the 1970s. However, from 1980s
and ‘90s, in the face of declining government funding for HE, the universities and
colleges found one via media to make up for resource gap to meet their maintenance
cost and also satisfy the increased social demand for HE, without compromising UGC
norms in respect of standards. That was by way of starting self‐financing courses in
public universities and colleges as well as self‐financing colleges by the government by
offering the same courses approved by the UGC. Very soon, the State governments
also allowed private agencies ― Charitable Trusts or Societies ― to establish self‐
financing colleges and offer UGC‐ approved courses by charging high tuition fees as
well as various kinds of fees and charges not only to recover the cost but also to make
profit (Gnanam, 2008, p.105; Varghese, 2013).
The increasing privatization of HE through the self‐financing institutions, that
accompanied the economic reforms and liberalization from 1991, came with an
argument for autonomy. In the wake of liberalization, HE was seen as commodity, a
tangible benefit and service that needed to be purchased, offered by the private
institutions of HE for a price. This was in sync with the decline in public funding for HE,
and the emergence of private HE institutions (HEIs). In the changing scenario, the
earlier notion of autonomy of universities, its teachers, students and administrators,
seemed indefensible, as it was seen as lacking in accountability to the “stakeholders” –
the students, parents and society which pays for tangible benefits it received.
Therefore, to be able to deliver the services and benefits, the private institutions,
offering HE, needed administrative, academic and financial autonomy and freedom
50 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
from the control of the UGC, AICTE and other such statutory bodies. It was no longer
autonomy for pursuit of knowledge, study and critique of the system, protected by
state support and funding. Now, the private institutions wanted autonomy and
freedom from any control, and autonomy to regulate cost and services of HE,
according to the market principles. It meant autonomy in a completely opposite
direction. It was an expression of HE as well as the institutions dispensing this service
– the universities and colleges, both public and private, taking on the characteristics of,
and the operational norms associated with business enterprises (Prasad, 2006, p. 491).
Almost a decade before the NPE, 1986 and its POA were formulated and adopted
by the Parliament, many states like Andhra Pradesh (AP) decided to raise the fees in
aided and un‐aided colleges for professional courses in engineering and medicine.
Professional education in private sector was ardently promoted in AP from late 1970s
(Shatrugna, 1993, 2057) and was soon emulated by Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and
Maharashtra (Varghese, 2013). Trends such as these forced the NPE, 1986 and its POA
to declare that (i) States cannot legislate creation of colleges without UGC’s consent
and sanction; and (ii) statutory bodies like UGC would regulate admission on the basis
of physical facilities, etc. It said that the State Councils of HE (SCHE) will prepare
coordinated programmes of development of HE in each State, which would then be
endorsed by UGC (GOI, 1986, p. 38).
The government was conscious of the declining trend in the state allocations to
higher and technical education and the NPE, 1986 and Revised POA 1992 openly
admitted the need for some alternative way out, like raising tuition fees and other
charges, subject to an elaborate and effective system for providing freeships,
scholarships, and loans to students belonging to the weaker sections of society (GOI,
1996, p. 111). The POA declared that a High Powered Committee would be set up to
consider steps for mobilisation of additional resources for HE, both general and
technical, to bring about a better balance in the funding, and improve the cost‐
efficiency (GOI, 1996, p. 69‐70, 81).
A. Mathew 51
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
The Gnanam Committee was appointed in 1990 against the backdrop of State
Governments bypassing the UGC and establishing self‐financing public and unaided
private colleges. In states like Andhra Pradesh, private professional colleges in
engineering and medicine were charging between Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 8 lakhs fees per
annum. The Gnanam Committee was requested to review the existing management
system and structures in the HE system and suggest alternative models. It
recommended that (i) the Central Government should make a legislation mandating its
incorporation in the Acts of all Universities to follow and adhere to the regulations
issued by UGC from time to time; (ii) No new university should be established without
the prior concurrence of the UGC, and with reference to the special needs, size of
population, size of an existing University etc; and (iii) New legislations (including
amendments to existing ones) in respect of State Universities should be referred to
UGC prior to their enactment (UGC, 1990, p. 39; Sharma, 2013).
In pursuance of the announcement made by the Revised POA, the UGC set up a
High Powered Committee in 1992 under the Chairmanship of Justice Dr. K. Punnayya to
consider steps for mobilization of additional resources for HE. It was meant to
examine the present financial situation of central universities, deemed universities,
and colleges affiliated to Delhi and Banaras Hindu University, to make necessary
recommendations about their financial needs and to suggest changes which could be
introduced in the system of grants to these institutions. The Punnayya Committee
recommended that: any additional resources generated by universities/institutions
should be kept in a separate fund and should be used to further its objectives; UGC
may give a matching grant as incentive to universities generating additional resources;
Cent per cent income tax concessions be given for all endowments and contributions
made to universities/institutions; and additional concessions be provided to donors
sponsoring research projects. While universities should be encouraged to augment
their resources for covering larger proportion of costs of education than what prevails
now, the increased burden must be borne only by those who can afford it. State or
52 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
government funding must continue to be an essential maintenance and
developmental requirement of universities (UGC, 1993, p.107).
The High Powered Committee on Technical Education (1992), headed by
Dr. D. Swaminathan, was to suggest ways for technical education institutions to
become self‐reliant in resources. Given the dwindling state of financial support, the
Swaminathan Committee felt that the time was appropriate to take new initiatives,
such as raising internal and external resources like contributions from industry, alumni,
and charitable trusts etc., (AICTE, 1994, p. 2‐3). It recommended, among others, raising
internal resources, rationalization of fee structures, including fixing the fee at a fairly
high level and revising it from time to time, as done by private unaided institutions,
besides attracting foreign students, enhancing consultancy work and sponsored
research and offering revenue‐ generating courses for the industry (AICTE, 1994, p. iv).
The NPE’s POA took note of the fee raises in aided and unaided colleges and
reiterated that statutory bodies’ sanction is a must for their affiliation, which went
unheeded. But it was also true that the policies formulated for different sectors of HE
in different times caused considerable confusion and harassment to competent
agencies and discouraged them while incompetent and unethical groups exploited HE.
Perceptive observers cautioned that this anomaly needed correction (Ananadakrishan,
2014; Shatrugna, 1993; Tilak, 1991).
Towards Dominance of Private Participation in HE
The Ambani‐Birla Report (2000) advocated (i) establishment of world‐class HE
facilities at every district headquarters; (ii) fostering a healthy mix of state‐supported
education with private initiatives, within affordable cost, and (iii) enforcing strictly the
“user pays” principle for HE supported by loan schemes and financial grants for
economically and socially backward sections of society (GOI, 2000). The Ambani‐Birla
Committee wanted a clear policy milieu with complete freedom to establish private
universities and colleges and other HEIs, without any reference to the existing
A. Mathew 53
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
statutory bodies like UGC, and price its programmes and courses as the private
agencies/institutions deemed appropriate. It also wanted that all political parties
should come to an understanding that they will keep away from universities and
educational institutions, and ban any form of political activity on campuses of
universities and educational institutions.
The National Knowledge Commission’s take on the scope for private institutions
in the provision of HE was one of implicit approval of their widespread presence and
an explicit plea for their role – co‐existence as a matter of policy. The NKC advocated
private investment in education by offering land grants, and other facilities, if needed
for, because “even with the best will in the world, government financing cannot be
enough to support the massive expansion in opportunities for HE on a scale that is
now essential” (NKC, 2006, p. 12).
The Review Committee on “Deemed to be Universities” (also known Tandon
Committee), constituted by the Govt. of India (MHRD) in 2009, observed that
“interacting with representatives of 126 deemed universities, we are struck by the
aberrations and some unacceptable practices”. It said that the deemed universities
fall into three categories: (i) those that justify their deemed university status
eminently = 38; (ii) those deficient in some respects which need to be rectified in 3
years = 44; and (iii) those neither on past performance nor on future potential hold
hopes and deserve their status = 44. Continuation of the third category by allowing
them to grant degrees is injurious to the case of quality of higher education, and,
without doubt, would imperil the future of millions of our youth and a committee at
national level is needed to salvage the future of the affected students is necessary
(Tandon Committee, 2009, p. 21‐26).
With respect to the future of deemed universities, the Committee said (i) The
highest governing body of deemed university such as Board of Management,
Executive Council or Governing Council, must always be headed by the Vice‐Chancellor
54 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
as in all conventional universities. Its membership should invariably include at least 50%
of distinguished academics and professionals, and with not more than one or two
representatives of the "Trust, Society or President" in the case of private deemed
universities, and government representatives, in the case of publicly sponsored
deemed universities; (ii) The President of deemed university should not be
automatically designated as the Chancellor. President’s role should only be ceremonial;
(iii) The President or the Chancellor nominating close relatives to the Board or as Vice‐
Chancellor/ Pro‐Vice Chancellor is undesirable and against the UGC rules, and must be
discontinued; (iv) Admissions to all institutions of higher education, public or private,
should be based on centralised examination. This will obviate the scope of
malpractices now widely prevalent; (v) The fees charged for courses offered in
deemed universities should be reasonable in relation to the cost of running the course
and comparable to the fee levels in other institution for a similar course. There should
be a national Committee to bring about a rational fee structure for deemed
universities which can be reviewed periodically; (vi) There should be a more intensive
and exhaustive external review of every deemed university once in every five years;
(vii) While private participation in higher education is probably needed, it must be
ensured that it does not lead to crass commercialization of education at the cost of
equity and access to all deserving students and to the sacrifice of merit (Tandon
Committee, 2009, p. 29‐31).
The Committee on Renovation and Rejuvenation of HE, headed by Prof. Yashpal,
was convinced that in order to reach the goals of doubling the present HE capacity,
private sector participation should be encouraged. At the same time, government
cannot afford to abandon its role and leave that task entirely to the private sector. In
fact, all the different models are needed viz., state run, private and PPPs with rational
and consistent ground rules, overseen by a transparent regulatory mechanism (MHRD,
2009, p. 33‐34). But, the purely private initiatives require a credible corrective
A. Mathew 55
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
mechanism to do away with plenty of the ills associated with it currently (MHRD, 2009,
p. 34).
The Yashpal Committee was firm that private initiatives in HE should be not
driven by the sole motive of profit and confine themselves only to ‘commercially
viable’ sectors of education, such as management, accountancy and medicine etc., but
should also establish institutions that will offer social and natural sciences. Otherwise,
such institutions should be allowed to confer only diplomas and certificates and not
university degrees. (MHRD, 2009, p. 35).
The Yashpal Committee noted the sudden spurt in the mushrooming of deemed
universities as “another area of concern”. It found that some of the private institutions
took the deemed‐to‐be university route to get degree‐granting powers. While the
number of private‐sponsored institutions that got the deemed university status was 26
during 2000‐2005, it shot up to 108 by 2009. By a notification of the UGC, it was no
longer necessary for them to use the adjective “deemed” and they all started calling
themselves simply universities (MHRD, 2009, p. 35). It strongly recommended i.e. in
view of considerable misuse of the provision for Deemed University status, the
granting of such status should be put on hold till unambiguous and rational guidelines
are evolved. Institutions wishing to get deemed university status should demonstrate
special capabilities as was originally intended and should be rigorously evaluated to
see if they fulfill the holistic and universal concept of university” (MHRD, 2009, p. 35).
The Committee on Corporate Participation in HE, headed by N.R. Narayana
Murthy, referred to the Working Group on higher and technical education for the XII
Plan that projected a resource requirement of Rs. 4,13,368 crores. It felt that this large
amount is unlikely to be made available, and the government has to find innovative
and newer avenues of funding. It suggested that the corporate sector, as a key
stakeholder in HE, can collaborate with the academia in several ways, with varying
funding commitment: (i) Creating enabling conditions to make the HE system robust
56 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
and useful to attract investments; (ii) Improving the quality of HE, … with corporate
sector participation; and (iii) Engaging the corporate sector to invest in existing
institutions, set up new institutions, and develop new knowledge clusters
(GOI, 2012, p.ii‐iii).
It was the Planning Commission that appointed this Committee to suggest
measures for Corporate Participation in HE. Having seen the Report and as a measure
of government’s intention to give effect to its recommendations, the XII Plan (2012‐
2017) said that “private HE now accounts for 58.5% of enrolments. Private sector will
be encouraged in the establishment of larger [number] and better quality HEIs in 12th
Plan.” It said that the current no entry provision of for‐profit private institutions needs
a rethink to allow their entry in select areas where acute shortage persists. There
should be “innovative ways to encourage private institutions in HE”, like “legal status”
for allowing all types of private institutions under Section 25 of Companies Act,
including conversion of Trusts and Societies to do so, and giving priority recognition
to it and providing infrastructure status with financial and tax benefits (Planning
Commission, 2013, p. 100).
The FICCI Education Summit 2013 came in the immediate aftermath of the XII Five
Year Plan, legitimizing and valuing private participation in HE. The FICCI Summit
foresees the situation in 2030 and describes the progress as would have happened
along the lines it recommended in 2013. It starts as: “2030. This year marks 80 years of
constitutional democracy, 40 years of economic liberalisation, and 20 years of
accelerated educational reform… The Indian HE system has undergone rapid
expansion. In less than 20 years, the country has created additional capacity for a
mammoth 40 million students… [and this as result of] aggressive expansion as a
deliberate strategy and an organized design (EY & FICCI, 2013, p. 7‐8).
FICCI Vision 2030, looking back, states that the keys to this “revolution” and
“transformation” in HE leading to the “50% GER and 40 million enrolment” and
A. Mathew 57
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
“massive online courses enrolling 60% of world’s entire student population” are: (i)
“diminishing government in governance”, with government withdrawing from direct
management through multiple regulators to a single independent regulatory body for
entire gamut of HE; (ii) “enabling environment”, with “less barriers for private and
foreign participation”; and (iii) a change from “Government as single provider of
funds” to a position where institutions, and individuals – students, faculty and
researchers, no longer have to rely on government, but could start sourcing funding,
from other sources “to assure autonomy” [i.e., freedom from any control and
accountability to any one] (EY & FICCI, 2013, p. 12).
In sum, the space for private involvement in HE in India not just in actual practice
but, more importantly, at the policy level, as seen in policy discourses, moved from the
margin to the centre and began to clamour for the HE system to be handed over to the
private sector. This was a plea for the government to shift fro the field of HE and
confine its attention to primary education and literacy as its principal obligation. It was
an expression of HE as not a public good but a private good whose returns go to
individuals and their families and for which they have to pay to the provider, the
private institutions. Private involvement in HE has to be legitimized and ensured by
legislation both at the central and state level and such legislation should also stipulate
their autonomy and freedom in administration, academic and governance matters,
including the cost. This argument for a legally‐ensured dominant space for private
involvement in HE also marks a metamorphosis. It is not as if the public institutions and
the role of government involvement in HE has disappeared. It still retains substantial
number of HEIs – universities, colleges and diploma institutions. But, in the policy
milieu as seen in the discourses of the commissions and committees, there is an
increasing stridency in the argument for leaving the field, as well as policy justification,
in favour of private involvement in HE.
58 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
Conclusion
In the perceptions of the commissions and committees on higher education, the
system of governance, envisioned and designed for universities and the system of
higher education inherited from the British and perfected through the 1950s and ’60s,
were seen to be an appropriate model. They were concerned more with the factors
affecting the standard and quality of higher education ― the academic factors, such as
admissions beyond the capacity, the serious deficiencies in the teacher quality and
ability in teaching methods and, more importantly, in respect of assessment and
examinations. It was perceived that the issue of the content and curriculum lagged
behind the emerging new fields and the need for their inclusion in the subjects of
study at university and college levels, and there was also a lack of flexibility in the
combination of subjects and choice of courses at the UG and PG levels. Although
these issues also continued to engage the attention, the major concern of the
commissions and committees on higher education since the 1980s was decisively
influenced by the compromises in the governance and management of the institutions
and the system of higher education, which aggravated the deterioration not only in its
standard and quality but its very credibility and image. How much of the
recommendations of different commissions and committees regarding autonomy and
accountability were implemented is debatable. But, without doubt, it could be said
that higher education system continues to engage on both fronts i.e., seeking to
improve on the less contentious academic front like increasing the relevance of
content and curriculum, improvement in the teaching methods, in the quality of
teachers and their working environment and performance and in assessment and
evaluation. The other front is the radical reform in the management of the institutions
of higher education – universities and colleges as well as in the governance of the
system of higher education.
There is also another strand in the policy discourses, especially during the post‐
Reform phase, i.e., that the engagement in HE was significant for the state’s retreat in
A. Mathew 59
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
policy priority and funding commitment and the state facilitating the private sector
engagement in HE, albeit with some noise about putting a ceiling on fees and
regulation on their management. But, as mentioned above, there is an increasing
stridency in the argument for government leaving the field in favour of private
engagement in HE. There has been a consistent argument for un‐wavered priority and
funding support for HE as a public enterprise with autonomy and accountability going
together. But, of late, the trend towards policy legitimacy for private engagement in
HE is gaining currency.
60 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
Annexure
Commissions and Committees on Education: Summary of Recommendations on Some Critical Issues of Higher Education
Expansion and Research; Reform and Improvement in Higher Education University Education Commission, 1949
− To avoid overcrowding, limit enrolment to 3000 in teaching universities and 1500 in affiliated colleges.
− mass lecture most common form of instruction, and, therefore, should be not supplemented by library work, tutorials and written exercises, ensuring that tutorials does not become “coaching for exams”.
− Standards of MA and MSc degrees should be raised by regulating admissions as per facilities and faculty.
− Introduce, at the earliest, reliable, objective examinations in universities. − Given the critical role of teachers in transmission of knowledge, replace their differential
scales of pay across different disciplines and institutions by uniform scales of pay, comparable to Provincial Services, to retain talent, extend PF benefits, retirement age should be 60, and extension till 64 years.
Education Commission, 1964‐66
− Plan HE expansion as per manpower needs of next 20 years and enrolment in UG level to double from 1.5 lakhs to 3.5 lakhs, and at PG and research level, from 45,000 to 7.5 lakhs.
− Give up open‐ door policy and adopt selective approach in admissions in Arts and Science courses.
− Second university in a State in case of university with unmanageable under‐graduate population in affiliated colleges.
− Specialization immediately after school at UG level is undesirable and allow flexibility in choice of courses, like combining physics, chemistry with biology..
− Same should be the approach at PG level. − Social sciences should be given a significant place in subjects of study in Indian universities,
with adequate provision of scholarships, flexibility in choice of subjects and higher allocation of funds.
− Develop and promote area studies of different regions like America, China, Asia – West, East, South and South‐East, Latin America, etc.
− External examinations will continue with us for a long time and introduce more frequent periodic assessment to reduce undue emphasis on external examinations.
− Each Department should have a personnel advisory committee to search outstanding young persons across India for teaching and research and teachers must be provided with attractive salaries and research opportunities.
− UGC should sponsor fellowships at Lecturer, Reader and Professor levels to attract outstanding persons to the teaching profession.
National Commission on Teachers – Higher Education, 1985
− Rigorous merit‐based selection crucial for teaching profession and education system should not be fragmented on basis of language, region, caste and religion.
− Give teachers a place of honour, good salary, prospects of good career development, but we must demand work and accountability from teachers and HEI managements.
National Policy on Education, 1986 and POA, 1992
− HE expansion uneven, not conforming to UGC norms, with many universities and colleges without minimum infrastructure, and, hence, consolidation and improvement of facilities rather than quantitative expansion.
− Re‐organise UG programme on modular pattern with option to combine courses to meet growing demands of specialization, and facilitate mobility among courses.
− Re‐organise Boards of Studies in universities to facilitative course redesign and promote inter‐disciplinary programmes.
− Re‐cast examination system with continuous comprehensive internal evaluation, with semester system and use of grades in place of marks.
A. Mathew 61
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
− Specially designed orientation programmes will be organized for professional and career development of teachers.
National Knowledge Commission, 2006 (NKC)
− Open 1,500 universities to boost GER to 15% by 2015. − Reform universities through: revision of curricula every three years, supplement annual
examination with internal assessment, transit to a course credit system, attract talented faculty by improving working conditions and incentives.
− Through Central legislation, form Independent Regulatory Authority for Higher Education (IRAHE), independent of all stakeholders, subsuming regulatory functions of UGC, AICTE, MCI, BCI, etc. such as entry, license, arbitration of disputes, etc., and avoid policy inconsistencies.
− UGC and other regulatory bodies would disburse grants and maintain public HEIs. − Enhance quality of education by stringent information disclosure norms, evaluation of
courses by teachers and students, retain talented faculty by differential salary packages across universities, formulate policies for entry of foreign institutions in India and promote Indian institutions abroad.
− Syllabi of courses in universities remains unchanged for decades and needs to be upgraded constantly and revised frequently, with more autonomy for teachers, through decentralization to Departments.
− Start internal assessment with at least 25% weightage and raise it to 50% over time. − Conscious effort should be made to attract and retain talented students – the potential
faculty and provide with office and research opportunities along with rewards for performance for individuals and institutions.
Committee On Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education (Yashpal Committee), 2009
− Form National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) to subsume academic functions of UGC, AICTE, MCI, BCI, etc. These bodies should conduct regular qualifying examinations.
− Establish a National Education Tribunal to adjudicate on disputes within and between institutions, and reduce litigation in courts
− NCHER’s top priority should be curricular reform, with mobility within a full range of curricular areas.
− Bring vocational education within universities’ purview. − NCHER to create National Research Foundation to promote research in universities. − Pending NCHER’s clear policy stand, stop allowing new deemed university. − NCHER to identify 1500 best colleges to upgrade as universities. − Set up a National Testing Scheme, open to all aspirants of university education, to be held
more than once a year. − Enhance quantum of central financial support to state‐funded universities.
Committee on Corporate participation in Higher Education (N.R. Narayana Murthy Committee), 2012
− India’s GER in HE must increase 20% by next decade and HE needs additional capacity of 26 million seats.
− For this, remove all barriers to corporate participation.
Governance and Re‐organisation of Higher Education Education Commission (1964‐66)
− Teaching, research and service to community, university’s core functions, need autonomy from regimentation of ideas or pressure from party politics.
− Vice‐Chancellor, necessarily a distinguished educationist or eminent scholar of any discipline or profession, should embody the spirit of academic freedom and principles of good management in university.
− His/her appointment should be left to the university, with Chancellor appointing from the panel of three persons.
− Adequate powers should be vested with VC for effective working of the university. − Important authorities of university includes the Court‐ policy‐ making body; Executive
Council – a small body of 10‐15 members; and Academic Council – the sole authority to decide courses of study and standards.
62 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
Committee on Governance of Universities and Colleges, 1972 (also known as Gajendragadkar Committee)
− Universities and colleges should devise mechanism and − machinery to redress grievances of its different constituents; adopt the principle of
rotation rather than election to different management bodies. − UGC as custodian of university autonomy, should be consulted before States enact or
amend any laws on universities. − Respect autonomy and supremacy of Academic Councils and Boards of Studies in
academic matters. NPE, 1986 and POA, 1986
− SCHE, a state level body for planning and coordination of HE, to protect it from degradation (a euphemism for socio‐political pressures and interferences).
Gnanam Committee, 1990.
Central Government legislate that UGC’s regulations as binding on all universities. − No new university by States without UGC’s concurrence and without reference to special
needs for new university. CABE Committee on Autonomy, 2005
Academic matters: Universities provide broad framework and leave freedom to individual HEIs to design courses and teachers to try out pedagogical innovations.
− UGC and AICTE should guide curriculum revision ensuring frontier areas in curriculum. − All universities quickly shift towards adoption of choice‐ based credit courses and
semester system. − All universities establish linkages with open and distance learning universities to enhance
enrolment. − Disband teacher appointment on contract and allow institutions to fill up vacancies
expeditiously. − Allow universities to offer courses as per emerging realities of the region.
Administration matters: Review university acts, statutes periodically for better management and for granting autonomy to affiliated colleges.
− Let intuitional heads decide number and rank of faculty positions. − University and college authorities and bodies to have a mix of elected and nominated
persons. − VC’s selection only by search‐cum‐selection process. − Training and development of academic administrators of HEIs is needed to improve quality
of governance. Financial matters: One third investment on education should be for HE.
− Bring all government universities and government‐aided colleges under UGC‐funding pattern and increase allocations to UGC.
− Full public funding of HEIs no longer possible and encourage and incentivise alternative fund generation.
− Set a ceiling on fee levels and ensure HEIs do not indulge in malpractices in fees. − Give HEIs autonomy to take up consultancy and sponsored research projects.
General: Make UGC more effective for maintenance of standards. HEIs need to be given full autonomy for academic and research collaborations with their counterparts, industry and professional organisations in India and abroad.
− Need to encourage private participation in HE with adequate social control. − Needed professional ethics and norms of accountability from teachers.
Privatisation and Private Higher Education NPE, 1986 and POA 1986
− States cannot legislate creation of colleges without UGC’s consent and sanction. − Statutory bodies like UGC would regulate admissions as per physical facilities and faculty
strength. − SCHE would prepare coordinated plans of HE development in a State which would be
endorsed by UGC. NPE, 1986 Revised POA, 1992
− Government of India would set up a High Powered Committee for mobilization of resources for higher education; and also a High Powered Committee on Technical Education for the same purpose.
Punnaya Committee, 1992
− Rather than penalize, UGC should incentivise by a matching grant, universities and colleges generating own funds for development purposes.
− Cent per cent income tax exemptions to endowments and contributions to HEIs.
A. Mathew 63
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
− Self‐financing courses only for those who can afford to pay and adequate subsidy/loan provisions for economically weaker students unable to pay high fees.
− Funding for HE is essentially the State responsibility. Swaminathan Committee on Technical Education, 1994
− Public technical education institutions should raise internal and external resources from industry, alumni, consultancy, sponsored research/projects, etc.
− Fix fees at a higher level and revise it periodically.
Ambani‐Birla Group, 2000
− Establish world‐ class HE facility at each district HQ. − Foster a healthy mix of state and affordable private initiatives. − Enforce strictly “user pays” principle in HE, with state support to economically weaker
sections. − Complete freedom to establish HEIs to private agency without reference to UGC, AICTE,
etc. − HEIs to be out‐ of‐bounds for politics and political parties.
NKC , 2006 − Private investment in HE is welcome and should be encouraged by offering land grants and other facilities.
Yashpal Committee, 2009
− To double the current capacity of HE, all three approaches are necessary, viz., public, private and PPP, but with consistent ground rules to do away with lot of ills associated with private initiatives.
− Private initiatives should not be driven by profit motives and confine attention to ‘commercially viable’ sectors like professional courses, but should also offer social and natural science courses.
− Given considerable misuse of provisions and pending decision of Tandon Committee on Deemed Universities, UGC should suspend sanction or recognition of new deemed universities.
Tandon Committee on Deemed Universities, 2009
− Abolish the category of 44 out of 126 deemed universities, which neither on past performance nor on future potential holds hope and deserve their status, and a national committee to salvage future of affected students.
− VCs, as in traditional universities, should head governing bodies of deemed universities like Board of Management, Executive Council and Governing Council, and its membership should include more than 50% of academicians and with not more than 1‐2 of Trust/President’s representatives.
− Trust/President can’t nominate VC, PVC, etc. − Centralized admissions test to govern admissions. − Fees should be reasonable to the cost of the course. − Ensure that private participation does not slip into crass commercialization.
Narayana Murthy Committee, 2012
− Create enabling conditions to make HE system robust and useful to attract private investments;
− Improve quality of HE with corporate participation; − Engage corporate sector to invest in existing institutions, set up new ones and develop
new knowledge clusters. FICCI Education Summit, 2013
− Create enabling environment with less barriers for private and foreign participation. − Change from government as a single provider of funds to a situation where students,
researchers and faculty can source funds from multiple sources to ensure autonomy and freedom from any control or accountability.
64 Reforms in Higher Education in India
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
References
AICTE: All India Council for Technical Education (1994): Report of the High Power Committee for Mobilisation of Additional Resources for Technical Education. New Delhi: AICTE.
Anandakrishnan, M (2014): Higher Education at the Crossroads. New Delhi: Indian Society for Technical Education and Bloomsbury.
EY & FICCI: Ernst and Young & Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce (2013): Higher Education in India: Vision 2030: FICCI HE Summit 2013. New Delhi: Ernst & Young LLP.
Gnanam, A. (2008): “Private Higher Education in the Indian Context”, in, Asha Gupta, Daniel C Levey and K B Power (eds.), Private HE: Global Trends and Indian Perspective, New Delhi: Shipra Publications.
GOI: Government of India (1986): National Policy on Education, 1986: Programme of Action. New Delhi: GOI
GOI: Government of India (1996): National Policy on Education, 1986: Programme of Action, 1992. New Delhi: GOI.
GOI: Government of India (2000): Report on a Policy Framework for Reforms in Education, Prime Minister’s Council on Trade and Industry. New Delhi: Government of India.
GOI: Government of India (2012): Committee on Corporate Sector Participation in Higher Education: Report of N R Narayana Murthy Committee. New Delhi: Planning Commission.
MHRD: Ministry of Human Resource Development (1986): National Policy on Education. New Delhi: Government of India.
MHRD: Ministry of Human Resource Development (2005): Report of the Central Advisory Board of Education Committee on Autonomy of Higher Education Institution. New Delhi: Government of India.
MHRD: Ministry of Human Resource Development (2009): Report of the Committee to Advise on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education. New Delhi: MHRD.
MOE: Ministry of Education (1962): Report of the University Education Commission (December 1948‐August 1949), Vol. 1, New Delhi: Government of India.
MOE: Ministry of Education (1968): National Policy on Education 1968. New Delhi: Government of India.
MOE: Ministry of Education (1985): Challenge of Education: Policy Perspective. New Delhi: Government of India.
MOE & YS: Ministry of Education & Youth Services (1969): Report of the Banaras Hindu University Inquiry Committee (January‐July 1969). New Delhi: MOE & YS.
NCERT: National Council of Educational Research and Training (1971): Education and National Development: Report of Education Commission (1964‐66), Vol. 3, Higher Education, New Delhi.
NIEPA: National Institute for Educational Planning and Administration (2005): Report of the CABE Committee on Financing of Higher and Technical Education. New Delhi: National Institute for Educational Planning and Administration (mimeo).
NKC: National Knowledge Commission (2006): Report to the Nation. New Delhi: NKC.
A. Mathew 65
CPRHE Research Papers -- 2
Planning Commission (2013): Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012‐2017): Social Sectors, Vol. III. New Delhi: Government of India.
Prasad, Madhu (2006): "Autonomy, Privatisation and Commercialization in HE", in Ved Prakash and K. Biswal (eds.), Perspectives on Education and Development, New Delhi: Shipra Publications, pp. 479‐99.
Report of the National Commission on Teachers in Higher Education (1985) (mimeo) Report of the Committee for Review of Existing Institutions Deemed to be Universities (2009):
Report submitted to University Grants Commission, New Delhi. Shatrugna, M (1993): “Commercialisation of Higher Education in Andhra Pradesh”, Economic
and Political Weekly, September 25, pp. 2057‐58. Sharma, Kavita (2013): 60 Years of the University Grants Commission: Establishment, Growth and
Evolution. New Delhi: University Grants Commission. Swamy, V.C. Kulandai: “Report of the National Knowledge Commission on Higher Education:
Review”, in http://kulandaiswamy.com/downloads/National_Knowledge_Commission.pdf Tilak, Jandhyala, B.G (1991): “The Privatization of Higher Education”, Prospects – Quarterly
Review of Education, 21 (78). UGC: University Grants Commission (1971): Report of the Committee on Governance of
Universities and Colleges, Part‐I, Governance of Universities. New Delhi: UGC UGC: University Grants Commission (1990): Report of UGC Committee towards New Educational
Management. New Delhi: UGC. UGC: University Grants Commission (1993): Funding of Institutions of Higher Education: Report
of Justice Dr. K. Punnayya Committee – 1992‐93. New Delhi: UGC Varghese, N.V (2013): “Private Higher Education: The Global Surge and Indian Concerns”, in
IDFC India Infrastructure Report 2012: Private Sector in Education, New Delhi: Routledge, pp. 145‐156.
About the paper
About the author
2016
Centre for Policy Research in Higher Education
Centre for Policy Research in Higher Education
Series Editors
N. V. Varghese and Malish C. M.
research papers 2
A. Mathew
Reforms in Higher Education in India:A Review of Recommendations of
Commissions and Committees on Education
The discourses and recommendations of commissions and committees relating to higher education since Independence reveal widely varying trends. As it was mainly in state sector, the main thrust of commission/committee discourses on higher education (HE) till the 1970s was against expansion and for regulation according to UGC norms to protect it from deterioration in quality and standards as prevalent earlier. With decline in government funding from 1980s and 1990s, privatization and private agencies' entry through self-financing courses and colleges became an option to meet rising social demand for HE. The commissions and committees endorsed this approach while stressing the need to control private HE institutions from charging exorbitant fees. Although a significant portion of HE still continues under the state sector, there is far greater aggressiveness in the private agency's arguments for their unmitigated freedom and autonomy in higher education away from government control.
Currently working as National Fellow at NUEPA. His area of specialization includes study of educational development in historical perspective, adult education and lifelong learning. He has been actively involved in providing technical support to the Government of India in implementing adult education programmes. He has published six books and more than 100 articles in the areas of adult, primary, and higher education, history of education, and education policies.